So should capacity be stored in a new 'm_max_capacity" similar to pools or keep the old 'm_capacity'?
Anything I can help with or are you already in the process of all these changes?
And should this be moved to github instead?
Search found 28 matches
- Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:08 pm
- Forum: Feature Requests
- Topic: Render Pools
- Replies: 25
- Views: 47697
- Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:58 am
- Forum: Feature Requests
- Topic: Render Pools
- Replies: 25
- Views: 47697
- Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:39 pm
- Forum: Feature Requests
- Topic: Render Pools
- Replies: 25
- Views: 47697
Re: Render Pools
You mean the other way around?
I found where I could change it for the pool, but not for the render
Seems that render is missing the parameter completely
I found where I could change it for the pool, but not for the render
Seems that render is missing the parameter completely
- Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:15 pm
- Forum: Feature Requests
- Topic: Render Pools
- Replies: 25
- Views: 47697
Re: Render Pools
Have added the most of the render commands to afcmd, although I would suggest that "reassign pool" be renamed to "unset pool" or "reset pool"
- Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:06 pm
- Forum: Feature Requests
- Topic: Render Pools
- Replies: 25
- Views: 47697
- Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:32 pm
- Forum: Feature Requests
- Topic: Render Pools
- Replies: 25
- Views: 47697
Re: Render Pools
Come to think of it, one could make a farm.json parser which applies the rules on the farm. If this can be run at startup it would still be compatible with the old setup. I do like the idea that one can add and remove services on-the-fly (which is actually a problem I'm currently facing). Although I...
- Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:40 pm
- Forum: Feature Requests
- Topic: Render Pools
- Replies: 25
- Views: 47697
Re: Render Pools
After seeing that the render pools have been implemented I wanted to give it a spin. I would REALLY miss the farm.json setup. Not having the ability to dynamically assign capacity, services through rules is a BIG loss IMHO. Wouldn't it be better to have rules to assign pools? I don't see the benefit...
- Tue May 08, 2018 10:51 am
- Forum: News
- Topic: New node type - Branch (a set of jobs).
- Replies: 6
- Views: 17753
Re: New node type - Branch (a set of jobs).
Sounds good.
If people need to use this for site seperation they likely have their own submitters and can set the branch manually.
If people need to use this for site seperation they likely have their own submitters and can set the branch manually.
- Thu May 03, 2018 9:20 pm
- Forum: News
- Topic: New node type - Branch (a set of jobs).
- Replies: 6
- Views: 17753
Re: New node type - Branch (a set of jobs).
Hmm... I think it should be when it evaluates which branch to parent, so server side? Perhaps x amount of levels to ignore and OS specific. Either way it's always possible to override it when submitting I guess..
- Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:11 pm
- Forum: News
- Topic: New node type - Branch (a set of jobs).
- Replies: 6
- Views: 17753
Re: New node type - Branch (a set of jobs).
One thing though I noticed with branches. It should be configurable to set a root from which it should create branches from.
Eg. if you have mounted '/mnt/servers/A/projectB' it would give you alot of sub branches which adds no value.
Eg. if you have mounted '/mnt/servers/A/projectB' it would give you alot of sub branches which adds no value.