Platform LSF Administration Guide Version 6.2

Hierarchical User-based Fairshare
Administering Platform LSF
290
Begin UserGroup
GROUP_NAME GROUP_MEMBER USER_SHARES
GroupB (User1 User2) ()
GroupC (User3 User4) ([User3, 3] [User4, 4])
GroupA (GroupB GroupC User5) ([User5, 1] [default, 10])
End UserGroup
◆ User groups must be defined before they can be used (in the GROUP_MEMBER
column) to define other groups.
◆ Enclose the share assignment list in parentheses, as shown, even if you do not
specify any user share assignments.
Example
An Engineering queue or host partition organizes users hierarchically, and divides the
shares as shown. It does not matter what the actual number of shares assigned at each
level is.
The Development group will get the largest share (50%) of the resources in the event of
contention. Shares assigned to the Development group can be further divided among
the Systems, Application and Test groups which receive 15%, 35%, and 50%,
respectively. At the lowest level, individual users compete for these shares as usual.
One way to measure a user’s importance is to multiply their percentage of the resources
at every level of the share tree. For example,
User1 is entitled to 10% of the available
resources (.50 x .80 x .25 = .10) and
User3 is entitled to 4% (.80 x .20 x .25 = .04).
However, if Research has the highest dynamic share priority among the 3 groups at the
top level, and ChipY has a higher dynamic priority than ChipX, the next comparison is
between
User3 and User4, so the importance of User1 is not relevant. The dynamic
priority of
User1 is not even calculated at this point.
Engineering
Technical
Support
Development Research
Test Application Systems Chip X Chip Y
User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4
25% 50% 25%
50% 35% 15% 80% 20%
50% 50% 80% 20%