[jsdl-wg] Process Topology

[Andreas Savva]

Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> On Apr 20, Andreas Savva loaded a tape reading:
> ...
> 
>>CPUcount is defined as the number of CPUs you want the resource to have. 
>>So it is the latter one.
>>
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this answer does not clarify (for me) the point Chris
> is asking.  I would think we want to express the number of CPUs
> allocated from a resource and a far secondary concern would be the
> total number of CPUs in the resource (including the ones not allocated
> to us).  By saying "the latter", you are saying it is this total CPUs
> including unallocated ones.  Do you really mean that?

After sending it out I thought it might be unclear. Sorry. Let me use a 
couple of simple examples.

I meant that if a resource description is given as
<Resource>
   <CPUCount> <Exact> 2.0 </Exact>  </CPUCount>
</Resource>

it means a 2-cpu host. Not 2 CPUs from a possibly larger N CPU machine.

If on the other hand I said
<Resource>
   <CPUCount> <LowerBoundedRange> 2.0 </LowerBoundedRange>  </CPUCount>
</Resource>

I would accept any machine with at least 2 CPUs.

So the (my?) definition would be closer to Chris' second definition.

Maybe we should leave the rest until we can clarify what is the correct 
definition of resource multiplicity (and what other people think the 
correct meaning of the above fragments are....)

Andreas

> 
> I think I can agree with Chris's statement that this is a sufficient
> set of terms (spelled out to be unambiguous):
> 
>   1. number of CPUs allocated per resource (a range value)
> 
>   2. number of allocated resources (a range value)
> 
>   3. total number of CPUs allocated to job (a range value)
> 
> given that draft 17 shows a multiplicity 0-1 for Resource, I think all
> three of these should be given here and left out of the Application
> section.  I also think tileSize is redundant with these three, as
> Chris suggested.  If we want the fourth:
> 
>   4. total number of CPUs in allocated resource including
>      unallocated CPUs (idle or allocated to other jobs)
> 
> Then we should be blatantly obvious about the difference, e.g.
> 
>   jsdl:PerResourceAllocatedCPUs
>   jsdl:PerResourceInstalledCPUs
>   jsdl:TotalJobAllocatedCPUs
> 
> or something like that!
> 
> If we were in fact going to allow multiple Resource elements (to
> express heterogeneous resource mixes), it would be awkward to put the
> total number of CPUs allocated within a Resource element. It would be
> better to keep that somewhere else which obviously has "global" scope
> within the job definition. In fact, this applies to all "global
> metrics" like total RAM, etc.
> 
> karl
> 

-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd