6570 slurm job state query #6579
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
✅ Deploy Preview for nextflow-docs-staging ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Signed-off-by: tcutts <tim.cutts@astrazeneca.com>
Signed-off-by: tcutts <tim.cutts@astrazeneca.com>
tcutts
force-pushed
the
6570-slurm-job-state-query
branch
from
9d7bb57 to
8bb86d0
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This patch adds support for the squeue --only-job-state option, which allows admins of recent SLURM versions to enable job state caching, and thereby reduce the RPC call load on SLURM. Because not all SLURM versions support this, and it does cause other filtering options (-p and -u) to be ignored, this has a new config parameter for the executor, onlyJobState, which defaults to "false" to stay the same as current nextflow behaviour.
I have written unit tests for the code, included in the PR, plus some docs for the users.
I have run the code on AstraZeneca's SLURM cluster, and it appears to behave correctly, at least for a very simple test workflow.