-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve documentation for NUM_CPU #8405
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8405 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.88% 90.88% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 347 347
Lines 21078 21078
==========================================
- Hits 19157 19156 -1
- Misses 1921 1922 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
exclusiveness on the compute node. If set incorrectly, there is no guarantee | ||
that the realization will fail. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
exclusiveness on the compute node. If set incorrectly, there is no guarantee | |
that the realization will fail. | |
exclusiveness on the compute node. If set incorrectly, there is no guarantee | |
that the realization will run. |
Is this correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nope. You are lucky if you are able to fail your realization by specifying wrong cpu count. We had only a few failures when num_cpu was missing altogheter in the lsf_driver and hundreds of multi-cpu Eclipse runs were running and all of them said to the LSF system what "I only need 1 cpu".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Very nice!
See minor question 📝
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
@sondreso any comment? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Except for the small comment from @jonathan-eq, this LGTM!
Don't mention any longer requirements for Torque, which are now deprecated.
87af89c
to
e1e0c43
Compare
Don't mention any longer requirements for Torque, which are now deprecated.
Issue
Resolves #8403
Approach
✍🏻
When applicable