YongGang opened a new pull request, #16510: URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/16510
<!-- Replace XXXX with the id of the issue fixed in this PR. Remove this section if there is no corresponding issue. Don't reference the issue in the title of this pull-request. --> <!-- If you are a committer, follow the PR action item checklist for committers: https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/dev/committer-instructions.md#pr-and-issue-action-item-checklist-for-committers. --> ### Description This PR introduces a new feature to dynamically select Kubernetes pod templates for task execution in Druid. This functionality aims to optimize resource utilization and improve task execution efficiency by tailoring pod specifications to the needs of different task characteristics. Druid operator can define execution strategies and associate them with different task characteristics through the new dynamic config interface. The system will apply these strategies dynamically as tasks are scheduled for execution. This feature is a step towards making Apache Druid more adaptable and efficient in Kubernetes environments, addressing the need for more granular control over resource allocation and task scheduling. #### Example Configuration: We define two categories in the configuration—`low-throughput` and `medium-throughput`—each associated with specific task conditions. - Low Throughput Category: Tasks that have a context tag `billingCategory=streaming_ingestion` and a datasource of `wikipedia` will be classified under the `low-throughput` category. This classification directs such tasks to utilize a predefined pod template optimized for low throughput requirements. - Medium Throughput Category: If a task does not meet the low-throughput criteria, the system will then evaluate it against the next selector. In this example, if the task type is index_kafka, it will fall into the `medium-throughput` category. #### Fallback Mechanism: If a task does not match any of the defined selectors, the category for this task will default to null. In such cases, the existing pod template selection logic will take over, matching tasks based on type. If there’s still no match, the base pod template will be used. ``` { "type": "default", "behaviorStrategy": { "type": "default", "categorySelectors": [ { "name": "low-throughput", "context.tags": { "billingCategory": [ "streaming_ingestion" ] }, "task": { "datasource": [ "wikipedia" ] } }, { "name": "medium-throughput", "task": { "type": [ "index_kafka" ] } } ] } } ``` This draft PR is mainly for design review, it lacks of docs and unit tests for now. <!-- Describe the goal of this PR, what problem are you fixing. If there is a corresponding issue (referenced above), it's not necessary to repeat the description here, however, you may choose to keep one summary sentence. --> <!-- Describe your patch: what did you change in code? How did you fix the problem? --> <!-- If there are several relatively logically separate changes in this PR, create a mini-section for each of them. For example: --> <!-- In each section, please describe design decisions made, including: - Choice of algorithms - Behavioral aspects. What configuration values are acceptable? How are corner cases and error conditions handled, such as when there are insufficient resources? - Class organization and design (how the logic is split between classes, inheritance, composition, design patterns) - Method organization and design (how the logic is split between methods, parameters and return types) - Naming (class, method, API, configuration, HTTP endpoint, names of emitted metrics) --> <!-- It's good to describe an alternative design (or mention an alternative name) for every design (or naming) decision point and compare the alternatives with the designs that you've implemented (or the names you've chosen) to highlight the advantages of the chosen designs and names. --> <!-- If there was a discussion of the design of the feature implemented in this PR elsewhere (e. g. a "Proposal" issue, any other issue, or a thread in the development mailing list), link to that discussion from this PR description and explain what have changed in your final design compared to your original proposal or the consensus version in the end of the discussion. If something hasn't changed since the original discussion, you can omit a detailed discussion of those aspects of the design here, perhaps apart from brief mentioning for the sake of readability of this PR description. --> <!-- Some of the aspects mentioned above may be omitted for simple and small changes. --> #### Release note <!-- Give your best effort to summarize your changes in a couple of sentences aimed toward Druid users. If your change doesn't have end user impact, you can skip this section. For tips about how to write a good release note, see [Release notes](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#release-notes). --> <hr> ##### Key changed/added classes in this PR <hr> <!-- Check the items by putting "x" in the brackets for the done things. Not all of these items apply to every PR. Remove the items which are not done or not relevant to the PR. None of the items from the checklist below are strictly necessary, but it would be very helpful if you at least self-review the PR. --> This PR has: - [ ] been self-reviewed. - [ ] using the [concurrency checklist](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/dev/code-review/concurrency.md) (Remove this item if the PR doesn't have any relation to concurrency.) - [ ] added documentation for new or modified features or behaviors. - [ ] a release note entry in the PR description. - [ ] added Javadocs for most classes and all non-trivial methods. Linked related entities via Javadoc links. - [ ] added or updated version, license, or notice information in [licenses.yaml](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/dev/license.md) - [ ] added comments explaining the "why" and the intent of the code wherever would not be obvious for an unfamiliar reader. - [ ] added unit tests or modified existing tests to cover new code paths, ensuring the threshold for [code coverage](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/dev/code-review/code-coverage.md) is met. - [ ] added integration tests. - [ ] been tested in a test Druid cluster. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
