User Priorities and Negotiation

HTCondor uses priorities to determine machine allocation for jobs. This section details the priorities and the allocation of machines (negotiation).

For accounting purposes, each user is identified by username@uid_domain. Each user is assigned a priority value even if submitting jobs from different machines in the same domain, or even if submitting from multiple machines in the different domains.

The numerical priority value assigned to a user is inversely related to the goodness of the priority. A user with a numerical priority of 5 gets more resources than a user with a numerical priority of 50. There are two priority values assigned to HTCondor users:

  • Real User Priority (RUP), which measures resource usage of the user.

  • Effective User Priority (EUP), which determines the number of resources the user can get.

This section describes these two priorities and how they affect resource allocations in HTCondor. Documentation on configuring and controlling priorities may be found in the condor_negotiator Configuration File Entries section.

Real User Priority (RUP)

A user’s RUP reports a smoothed average of the number of cores a user has used over some recent period of time. Every user begins with a RUP of one half (0.5), which is the lowest possible value. At steady state, the RUP of a user equilibrates to the number of cores currently used. So, if a specific user continuously uses exactly ten cores for a long period of time, the RUP of that user asymptotically approaches ten.

However, if the user decreases the number of cores used, the RUP asymptotically lowers to the new value. The rate at which the priority value decays can be set by the macro PRIORITY_HALFLIFE , a time period defined in seconds. Intuitively, if the PRIORITY_HALFLIFE in a pool is set to the default of 86400 seconds (one day), and a user with a RUP of 10 has no running jobs, that user’s RUP would be 5 one day later, 2.5 two days later, and so on.

For example, if a new user has no historical usage, their RUP will start at 0.5 If that user then has 100 cores running, their RUP will grow as the graph below show:

User Priority

Or, if a new user with no historical usage has 100 cores running for 24 hours, then removes all the jobs, so has no cores running, their RUP will grow and shrink as shown below:

User Priority

Effective User Priority (EUP)

The effective user priority (EUP) of a user is used to determine how many cores a user should receive. The EUP is simply the RUP multiplied by a priority factor the administrator can set per-user. The default initial priority factor for all new users as they first submit jobs is set by the configuration variable DEFAULT_PRIO_FACTOR , and defaults to 1000.0. An administrator can change this priority factor using the condor_userprio command. For example, setting the priority factor of some user to 2,000 will grant that user twice as many cores as a user with the default priority factor of 1,000, assuming they both have the same historical usage.

The number of resources that a user may receive is inversely related to the ratio between the EUPs of submitting users. User A with EUP=5 will receive twice as many resources as user B with EUP=10 and four times as many resources as user C with EUP=20. However, if A does not use the full number of resources that A may be given, the available resources are repartitioned and distributed among remaining users according to the inverse ratio rule.

Assume two users with no history, named A and B, using a pool with 100 cores. To simplify the math, also assume both users have an equal priority factor of 1.0. User A submits a very large number of short-running jobs at time t = 0 zero. User B waits until 48 hours later, and also submits an infinite number of short jobs. At the beginning, the EUP doesn’t matter, as there is only one user with jobs, and so user A gets the whole pool. At the 48 hour mark, both users compete for the pool. Assuming the default PRIORITY_HALFLIFE of 24 hours, user A’s RUP should be about 75.0 at the 48 hour mark, and User B will still be the minimum of .5. At that instance, User B deserves 150 times User A. However, this ratio will decay quickly. User A’s share of the pool will drop from all 100 cores to less than one core immediately, but will quickly rebound to a handful of cores, and will asymptotically approach half of the pool as User B gets the inverse. A graph of these two users might look like this:

Fair Share

HTCondor supplies mechanisms to directly support two policies in which EUP may be useful:

Nice users

A job may be submitted with the submit command nice_user set to True. This nice user job will have its RUP boosted by the NICE_USER_PRIO_FACTOR priority factor specified in the configuration, leading to a very large EUP. This corresponds to a low priority for resources, therefore using resources not used by other HTCondor users.

Remote Users

HTCondor’s flocking feature (see the Connecting HTCondor Pools with Flocking section) allows jobs to run in a pool other than the local one. In addition, the submit-only feature allows a user to submit jobs to another pool. In such situations, submitters from other domains can submit to the local pool. It may be desirable to have HTCondor treat local users preferentially over these remote users. If configured, HTCondor will boost the RUPs of remote users by REMOTE_PRIO_FACTOR specified in the configuration, thereby lowering their priority for resources.

The priority boost factors for individual users can be set with the setfactor option of condor_userprio. Details may be found in the condor_userprio manual page.

Priorities in Negotiation and Preemption

Priorities are used to ensure that users get their fair share of resources. The priority values are used at allocation time, meaning during negotiation and matchmaking. Therefore, there are ClassAd attributes that take on defined values only during negotiation, making them ephemeral. In addition to allocation, HTCondor may preempt a machine claim and reallocate it when conditions change.

Too many preemptions lead to thrashing, a condition in which negotiation for a machine identifies a new job with a better priority most every cycle. Each job is, in turn, preempted, and no job finishes. To avoid this situation, the PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS configuration variable is defined for and used only by the condor_negotiator daemon to specify the conditions that must be met for a preemption to occur. When preemption is enabled, it is usually defined to deny preemption if a current running job has been running for a relatively short period of time. This effectively limits the number of preemptions per resource per time interval. Note that PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS only applies to preemptions due to user priority. It does not have any effect if the machine’s RANK expression prefers a different job, or if the machine’s policy causes the job to vacate due to other activity on the machine. See the condor_startd Policy Configuration section for the current default policy on preemption.

The following ephemeral attributes may be used within policy definitions. Care should be taken when using these attributes, due to their ephemeral nature; they are not always defined, so the usage of an expression to check if defined such as

(RemoteUserPrio =?= UNDEFINED)

is likely necessary.

Within these attributes, those with names that contain the string Submitter refer to characteristics about the candidate job’s user; those with names that contain the string Remote refer to characteristics about the user currently using the resource. Further, those with names that end with the string ResourcesInUse have values that may change within the time period associated with a single negotiation cycle. Therefore, the configuration variables PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS_STABLE and and PREEMPTION_RANK_STABLE exist to inform the condor_negotiator daemon that values may change. See the condor_negotiator Configuration File Entries section for definitions of these configuration variables.


A floating point value representing the user priority of the candidate job.


The integer number of slots currently utilized by the user submitting the candidate job.


A floating point value representing the user priority of the job currently running on the machine. This version of the attribute, with no slot represented in the attribute name, refers to the current slot being evaluated.


A floating point value representing the user priority of the job currently running on the particular slot represented by <N> on the machine.


The integer number of slots currently utilized by the user of the job currently running on the machine.


If the owner of the candidate job is a member of a valid accounting group, with a defined group quota, then this attribute is the integer number of slots currently utilized by the group.


The accounting group name of the requesting submitter.


If the owner of the candidate job is a member of a valid accounting group, with a defined group quota, then this attribute is the integer number of slots defined as the group’s quota.


If the owner of the currently running job is a member of a valid accounting group, with a defined group quota, then this attribute is the integer number of slots currently utilized by the group.


The accounting group name of the owner of the currently running job.


If the owner of the currently running job is a member of a valid accounting group, with a defined group quota, then this attribute is the integer number of slots defined as the group’s quota.


The accounting group name that the candidate job is negotiating under.


The accounting group name that the currently running job negotiated under.


Boolean attribute is True if candidate job is negotiated via autoregoup.


Boolean attribute is True if currently running job negotiated via autoregoup.

Priority Calculation

This section may be skipped if the reader so feels, but for the curious, here is HTCondor’s priority calculation algorithm.

The RUP of a user \(u\) at time \(t\), \(\pi_{r}(u,t)\), is calculated every time interval \(\delta t\) using the formula

\[\pi_r(u,t) = \beta × \pi_r(u, t - \delta t) + (1 - \beta) × \rho(u, t)\]

where \(\rho (u,t)\) is the number of resources used by user \(u\) at time \(t\), and \(\beta = 0.5^{\delta t / h}\). \(h\) is the half life period set by PRIORITY_HALFLIFE .

The EUP of user \(u\) at time \(t\), \(\pi_{e}(u,t)\) is calculated by

\[\pi_e(u,t) = \pi_r(u,t) \times f(u,t)\]

where \(f(u,t)\) is the priority boost factor for user \(u\) at time \(t\).

As mentioned previously, the RUP calculation is designed so that at steady state, each user’s RUP stabilizes at the number of resources used by that user. The definition of \(\beta\) ensures that the calculation of \(\pi_{r}(u,t)\) can be calculated over non-uniform time intervals \(\delta t\) without affecting the calculation. The time interval \(\delta t\) varies due to events internal to the system, but HTCondor guarantees that unless the central manager machine is down, no matches will be unaccounted for due to this variance.


Negotiation is the method HTCondor undergoes periodically to match queued jobs with resources capable of running jobs. The condor_negotiator daemon is responsible for negotiation.

During a negotiation cycle, the condor_negotiator daemon accomplishes the following ordered list of items.

  1. Build a list of all possible resources, regardless of the state of those resources.

  2. Obtain a list of all job submitters (for the entire pool).

  3. Sort the list of all job submitters based on EUP (see The Layperson’s Description of the Pie Spin and Pie Slice for an explanation of EUP). The submitter with the best priority is first within the sorted list.

  4. Iterate until there are either no more resources to match, or no more jobs to match.

    For each submitter (in EUP order):

    For each submitter, get each job. Since jobs may be submitted from more than one machine (hence to more than one condor_schedd daemon), here is a further definition of the ordering of these jobs. With jobs from a single condor_schedd daemon, jobs are typically returned in job priority order. When more than one condor_schedd daemon is involved, they are contacted in an undefined order. All jobs from a single condor_schedd daemon are considered before moving on to the next. For each job:

    • For each machine in the pool that can execute jobs:

      1. If machine.requirements evaluates to False or job.requirements evaluates to False, skip this machine

      2. If the machine is in the Claimed state, but not running a job, skip this machine.

      3. If this machine is not running a job, add it to the potential match list by reason of No Preemption.

      4. If the machine is running a job

        • If the machine.RANK on this job is better than the running job, add this machine to the potential match list by reason of Rank.

        • If the EUP of this job is better than the EUP of the currently running job, and PREEMPTION_REQUIREMENTS is True, and the machine.RANK on this job is not worse than the currently running job, add this machine to the potential match list by reason of Priority. See example below.

    • Of machines in the potential match list, sort by NEGOTIATOR_PRE_JOB_RANK, job.RANK, NEGOTIATOR_POST_JOB_RANK, Reason for claim (No Preemption, then Rank, then Priority), PREEMPTION_RANK

    • The job is assigned to the top machine on the potential match list. The machine is removed from the list of resources to match (on this negotiation cycle).

As described above, the condor_negotiator tries to match each job to all slots in the pool. Assume that five slots match one request for three jobs, and that their NEGOTIATOR_PRE_JOB_RANK, Job.Rank, and NEGOTIATOR_POST_JOB_RANK expressions evaluate (in the context of both the slot ad and the job ad) to the following values.

Slot Name
























Table 3.1: Example of slots before sorting

These slots would be sorted first on NEGOTIATOR_PRE_JOB_RANK`, then sorting all ties based on Job.Rank and any remaining ties sorted by NEGOTIATOR_POST_JOB_RANK. After that, the first three slots would be handed to the condor_schedd. This means that NEGOTIATOR_PRE_JOB_RANK is very strong, and overrides any ranking expression by the submitter of the job. After sorting, the slots would look like this, and the schedd would be given slot5, slot3 and slot2:

Slot Name
























Table 3.2: Example of slots after sorting

The condor_negotiator asks the condor_schedd for the “next job” from a given submitter/user. Typically, the condor_schedd returns jobs in the order of job priority. If priorities are the same, job submission time is used; older jobs go first. If a cluster has multiple procs in it and one of the jobs cannot be matched, the condor_schedd will not return any more jobs in that cluster on that negotiation pass. This is an optimization based on the theory that the cluster jobs are similar. The configuration variable NEGOTIATE_ALL_JOBS_IN_CLUSTER disables the cluster-skipping optimization. Use of the configuration variable SIGNIFICANT_ATTRIBUTES will change the definition of what the condor_schedd considers a cluster from the default definition of all jobs that share the same ClusterId.

The Layperson’s Description of the Pie Spin and Pie Slice

HTCondor schedules in a variety of ways. First, it takes all users who have submitted jobs and calculates their priority. Then, it totals the SlotWeight (by default, cores) of all currently available slots, and using the ratios of the user priorities, it calculates the number of cores each user could get. This is their pie slice. (See: SLOT_WEIGHT in condor_startd Configuration File Macros)

The HTCondor matchmaker goes in user priority order, contacts each schedd where that user’s job lives, and asks for job information. The condor_schedd daemon (on behalf of a user) tells the matchmaker about a job, and the matchmaker looks at available slots to create a list that match the requirements expression. It then sorts the matching slots by the rank expressions within ClassAds. If a slot prefers a job via the slot RANK expression, the job is assigned to that slot, potentially preempting an already running job. Otherwise, give the slot to the job that the job ranks highest. If the highest ranked slot is already running a job, the negotiator may preempt the running job for the new job.

This matchmaking cycle continues until the user has received all of the machines in their pie slice. If there is a per-user ceiling defined with the condor_userprio -setceil command, and this ceiling is smaller than the pie slice, the user gets only up to their ceiling number of cores. The matchmaker then contacts the next highest priority user and offers that user their pie slice worth of machines. After contacting all users, the cycle is repeated with any still available resources and recomputed pie slices. The matchmaker continues spinning the pie until it runs out of machines or all the condor_schedd daemons say they have no more jobs.

Group Accounting

By default, HTCondor does all accounting on a per-user basis. This means that HTCondor keeps track of the historical usage per-user, calculates a priority and fair-share per user, and allows the administrator to change this fair-share per user. In HTCondor terminology, the accounting principal is called the submitter.

The name of this submitter is, by default, the name the schedd authenticated when the job was first submitted to the schedd. Usually, this is the operating system username. However, the submitter can override the username selected by setting the submit file option

accounting_group_user = ishmael

This means this job should be treated, for accounting purposes only, as “ishamel”, but “ishmael” will not be the operating system id the shadow or job uses. Note that HTCondor trusts the user to set this to a valid value. The administrator can use schedd requirements or transforms to validate such settings, if desired. accounting_group_user is frequently used in web portals, where one trusted operating system process submits jobs on behalf of different users.

Note that if many people submit jobs with identical accounting_group_user values, HTCondor treats them as one set of jobs for accounting purposes. So, if Alice submits 100 jobs as accounting_group_user ishmael, and so does Bob a moment later, HTCondor will not try to fair-share between them, as it would do if they had not set accounting_group_user. If all these jobs have identical requirements, they will be run First-In, First-Out, so whoever submitted first makes the subsequent jobs wait until the last one of the first submit is finished.

Accounting Groups with Hierarchical Group Quotas

With additional configuration, it is possible to create accounting groups, where the submitters within the group maintain their distinct identity, and fair-share still happens within members of that group.

An upper limit on the number of slots allocated to a group of users can be specified with group quotas.

Consider an example pool with thirty slots: twenty slots are owned by the physics group and ten are owned by the chemistry group. The desired policy is that no more than twenty concurrent jobs are ever running from the physicists, and only ten from the chemists. These machines are otherwise identical, so it does not matter which machines run which group’s jobs. It only matters that the proportions of allocated slots are correct.

Group quotas may implement this policy. Define the groups and set their quotas in the configuration of the central manager:

GROUP_NAMES = group_physics, group_chemistry
GROUP_QUOTA_group_physics =   20
GROUP_QUOTA_group_chemistry = 10

The implementation of quotas is hierarchical, such that quotas may be described for the tree of groups, subgroups, sub subgroups, etc. Group names identify the groups, such that the configuration can define the quotas in terms of limiting the number of cores allocated for a group or subgroup. Group names do not need to begin with "group_", but that is the convention, which helps to avoid naming conflicts between groups and subgroups. The hierarchy is identified by using the period (‘.’) character to separate a group name from a subgroup name from a sub subgroup name, etc. Group names are case-insensitive for negotiation.

At the root of the tree that defines the hierarchical groups is the “<none>” group. The implied quota of the “<none>” group will be all available slots. This string will appear in the output of condor_status.

If the sum of the child quotas exceeds the parent, then the child quotas are scaled down in proportion to their relative sizes. For the given example, there were 30 original slots at the root of the tree. If a power failure removed half of the original 30, leaving fifteen slots, physics would be scaled back to a quota of ten, and chemistry to five. This scaling can be disabled by setting the condor_negotiator configuration variable NEGOTIATOR_ALLOW_QUOTA_OVERSUBSCRIPTION to True. If the sum of the child quotas is less than that of the parent, the child quotas remain intact; they are not scaled up. That is, if somehow the number of slots doubled from thirty to sixty, physics would still be limited to 20 slots, and chemistry would be limited to 10. This example in which the quota is defined by absolute values is called a static quota.

Each job must state which group it belongs to. By default, this is opt-in, and the system trusts each user to put the correct group in the submit description file. See “Setting Accounting Groups Automatically below” to configure the system to set them without user input and to prevent users from opting into the wrong groups. Jobs that do not identify themselves as a group member are negotiated for as part of the “<none>” group. Note that this requirement is per job, not per user. A given user may be a member of many groups. Jobs identify which group they are in by setting the accounting_group and accounting_group_user commands within the submit description file, as specified in the Group Accounting section. For example:

accounting_group = group_physics
accounting_group_user = einstein

The size of the quotas may instead be expressed as a proportion. This is then referred to as a dynamic group quota, because the size of the quota is dynamically recalculated every negotiation cycle, based on the total available size of the pool. Instead of using static quotas, this example can be recast using dynamic quotas, with one-third of the pool allocated to chemistry and two-thirds to physics. The quotas maintain this ratio even as the size of the pool changes, perhaps because of machine failures, because of the arrival of new machines within the pool, or because of other reasons. The job submit description files remain the same. Configuration on the central manager becomes:

GROUP_NAMES = group_physics, group_chemistry
GROUP_QUOTA_DYNAMIC_group_chemistry = 0.33
GROUP_QUOTA_DYNAMIC_group_physics =   0.66

The values of the quotas must be less than 1.0, indicating fractions of the pool’s machines. As with static quota specification, if the sum of the children exceeds one, they are scaled down proportionally so that their sum does equal 1.0. If their sum is less than one, they are not changed.

Extending this example to incorporate subgroups, assume that the physics group consists of high-energy (hep) and low-energy (lep) subgroups. The high-energy sub-group owns fifteen of the twenty physics slots, and the low-energy group owns the remainder. Groups are distinguished from subgroups by an intervening period character (.) in the group’s name. Static quotas for these subgroups extend the example configuration:

GROUP_NAMES = group_physics, group_physics.hep, group_physics.lep, group_chemistry
GROUP_QUOTA_group_physics     =   20
GROUP_QUOTA_group_physics.hep =   15
GROUP_QUOTA_group_physics.lep =    5
GROUP_QUOTA_group_chemistry   =   10

This hierarchy may be more useful when dynamic quotas are used. Here is the example, using dynamic quotas:

GROUP_NAMES = group_physics, group_physics.hep, group_physics.lep, group_chemistry
GROUP_QUOTA_DYNAMIC_group_chemistry   =   0.33334
GROUP_QUOTA_DYNAMIC_group_physics     =   0.66667
GROUP_QUOTA_DYNAMIC_group_physics.hep =   0.75
GROUP_QUOTA_DYNAMIC_group_physics.lep =   0.25

The fraction of a subgroup’s quota is expressed with respect to its parent group’s quota. That is, the high-energy physics subgroup is allocated 75% of the 66% that physics gets of the entire pool, however many that might be. If there are 30 machines in the pool, that would be the same 15 machines as specified in the static quota example.

High-energy physics users indicate which group their jobs should go in with the submit description file identification:

accounting_group = group_physics.hep
accounting_group_user = higgs

In all these examples so far, the hierarchy is merely a notational convenience. Each of the examples could be implemented with a flat structure, although it might be more confusing for the administrator. Surplus is the concept that creates a true hierarchy.

If a given group or sub-group accepts surplus, then that given group is allowed to exceed its configured quota, by using the leftover, unused quota of other groups. Surplus is disabled for all groups by default. Accepting surplus may be enabled for all groups by setting GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS to True. Surplus may be enabled for individual groups by setting GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS_<groupname> to True. Consider the following example:

GROUP_NAMES = group_physics, group_physics.hep, group_physics.lep, group_chemistry
GROUP_QUOTA_group_physics     =   20
GROUP_QUOTA_group_physics.hep =   15
GROUP_QUOTA_group_physics.lep =    5
GROUP_QUOTA_group_chemistry   =   10
GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS_group_physics = false
GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS_group_physics.lep = true
GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS_group_physics.hep = true

This configuration is the same as above for the chemistry users. However, GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS is set to False globally, False for the physics parent group, and True for the subgroups group_physics.lep and group_physics.lep. This means that group_physics.lep and group_physics.hep are allowed to exceed their quota of 15 and 5, but their sum cannot exceed 20, for that is their parent’s quota. If the group_physics had GROUP_ACCEPT_SURPLUS set to True, then either group_physics.lep and group_physics.hep would not be limited by quota.

Surplus slots are distributed bottom-up from within the quota tree. That is, any leaf nodes of this tree with excess quota will share it with any peers which accept surplus. Any subsequent excess will then be passed up to the parent node and over to all of its children, recursively. Any node that does not accept surplus implements a hard cap on the number of slots that the sum of it’s children use.

After the condor_negotiator calculates the quota assigned to each group, possibly adding in surplus, it then negotiates with the condor_schedd daemons in the system to try to match jobs to each group. It does this one group at a time. By default, it goes in “starvation group order.” That is, the group whose current usage is the smallest fraction of its quota goes first, then the next, and so on. The “<none>” group implicitly at the root of the tree goes last. This ordering can be replaced by defining configuration variable GROUP_SORT_EXPR . The condor_negotiator evaluates this ClassAd expression for each group ClassAd, sorts the groups by the floating point result, and then negotiates with the smallest positive value going first. Available attributes for sorting with GROUP_SORT_EXPR include:

Attribute Name



A string containing the group name


The computed limit for this group


The total slot weight used by this group


Quota allocated this cycle

Table 3.3: Attributes visible to GROUP_SORT_EXPR

One possible group quota policy is strict priority. For example, a site prefers physics users to match as many slots as they can, and only when all the physics jobs are running, and idle slots remain, are chemistry jobs allowed to run. The default “starvation group order” can be used to implement this. By setting configuration variable NEGOTIATOR_ALLOW_QUOTA_OVERSUBSCRIPTION to True, and setting the physics quota to a number so large that it cannot ever be met, such as one million, the physics group will always be the “most starving” group, will always negotiate first, and will always be unable to meet the quota. Only when all the physics jobs are running will the chemistry jobs then run. If the chemistry quota is set to a value smaller than physics, but still larger than the pool, this policy can support a third, even lower priority group, and so on.

The condor_userprio command can show the current quotas in effect, and the current usage by group. For example:

$ condor_userprio -quotas
Last Priority Update: 11/12 15:18
Group                    Effective  Config     Use    Subtree  Requested
Name                       Quota     Quota   Surplus   Quota   Resources
------------------------ --------- --------- ------- --------- ----------
group_physics.hep            15.00     15.00 no          15.00         60
group_physics.lep             5.00      5.00 no           5.00         60
------------------------ --------- --------- ------- --------- ----------
Number of users: 2                                 ByQuota

This shows that there are two groups, each with 60 jobs in the queue. group_physics.hep has a quota of 15 machines, and group_physics.lep has 5 machines. Other options to condor_userprio, such as -most will also show the number of resources in use.

Setting Accounting Group automatically per user

By default, any user can put the jobs into any accounting group by setting parameters in the submit file. This can be useful if a person is a member of multiple groups. However, many sites want to force all jobs submitted by a given user into one accounting group, and forbid the user to submit to any other group. An HTCondor metaknob makes this easy. By adding to the submit machine’s configuration, the setting

USE Feature: AssignAccountingGroup(file_name_of_map)

The admin can create a file that maps the users into their required accounting groups, and makes the attributes immutable, so they can’t be changed. The format of this map file is like other classad map files: Lines of three columns. The first should be an asterisk *. The second column is the name of the user, and the final is the accounting group that user should always submit to. For example,

* Alice     group_physics
* Bob       group_atlas
* Carol group_physics
* /^student_.*/     group_students

The second field can be a regular expression, if enclosed in //. Note that this is on the submit side, and the administrator will still need to create these group names and give them a quota on the central manager machine. This file is re-read on a condor_reconfig. The third field can also be a comma-separated list. If so, it represents the set of valid accounting groups a user can opt into. If the user does not set an accounting group in the submit file the first entry in the list will be used.