Slurm, fix ntasks per node to one #231
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
albertz
requested review from
NeoLegends,
michelwi,
JackTemaki,
curufinwe and
dthulke
|
Note, for PR #230, at least I had some theory why this would be the correct fix, but apparently my theory was wrong. For this PR here, while I can see that it might fix the issue, and apparently in my tests, it also does fix the issue, I don't fully understand the effect of this, and why exactly it goes wrong without this. |
NeoLegends
approved these changes
Dec 3, 2024
|
I just merged this now, as this is really annoying for me otherwise. But maybe someone can at some later point better explain why this is really the right fix. Or maybe we can just make another followup fix in case we figure out a better way to fix it. |
This was referenced Dec 5, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fix #229.
(Makes PR #230 obsolete.)
(This seems to be needed since we use an additional explicit
srunvia PR #212.)