Hi Joris, I still don't really understand why we would parameterize SUPPRESS, to me that sounds like a case for filters. The idea of SUPPRESS was to completely stop getting offers.
Could you please explain why you think the patch is a hack? To me it just seems logical to not sort frameworks that don't need to be considered in the allocator. Thanks, Dario > On 07.07.2016, at 7:38 AM, Joris Van Remoortere <[email protected]> wrote: > > The reason that SUPPRESS doesn't just deactivate is because the intent was > to be able to parameterize this call. At that point the change wouldn't > work without turning this in to 2 cases. > > I have asked to look at what a parameterized suppress would like and > understand the performance impact of that before we do this. > Have we reached consensus that there's no way to implement a generic > parameterized suppress that is performant? > > There are some refactorings that we had discussed with James, Jacob, and > Ian that seem like lower hanging fruit. After those are made it might be > worth reconsidering whether we need to do this hack. > > > > — > *Joris Van Remoortere* > Mesosphere > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Guangya Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Ben and Dario, >> >> The reason that we have "SUPPRESS" call is as following: >> 1) Act as the complement to the current REVIVE call. >> 2) The HTTP API do not have an API to "Deactivate" a framework, we want to >> use "SUPPRESS", "DECLINE" and "DECLINE_INVERSE_OFFERS" to implement the >> call for "DeactivateFrameworkMessage". >> >> You can also refer to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3037 for >> detail. >> >> So I think that Dario's patch is good, we should remove the framework >> clients when "SUPPRESS" and add the framework client back when "REVIVE". to >> ignore those frameworks from sorter. >> >> @Viond, any comments for this? >> >> @Ben, for your concern of the benchmark test result is not easy to >> understand, I have filed a JIRA ticket here >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5800 to trace. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Guangya >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Dario Rexin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Vinod, >>> >>> thanks for your reply. The reason it’s so much faster is because the >>> sorting is a lot faster with fewer frameworks. Looping shouldn’t make a >>> huge difference, as it used to just skip over the deactivated frameworks. >>> >>> I don’t know what effects deactivating the framework in the master would >>> have. The framework is still active and listening for events / sending >>> calls. Could you please elaborate? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- >>> Dario >>> >>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +implementer and shepherd of SUPPRESS >>> >>> Is there any reason we didn't already just "deactivate" frameworks that >>> were suppressing offers? That seems to be the natural implementation, >>> performance aside, because the meaning of "deactivated" is: not being >> sent >>> any offers. The patch you posted seems to only take this half-way: >> suppress >>> = deactivation in the allocator, but not in the master. >>> >>> Also, Dario it's a bit hard to interpret these numbers without reading >> the >>> benchmark code. My interpretation of these numbers is that this change >>> makes the allocation loop complete more quickly when there are many >>> frameworks that are in the suppressed state, because we have to loop over >>> fewer clients. Is this an accurate interpretation? >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Dario Rexin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I would like to revive https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4694 >> < >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4694>, especially >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/43666/ <https://reviews.apache.org/r/43666/ >>> . >>> We heavily depend on this patch and would love to see it merged. To show >>> the value of this patch, I ran the benchmark from >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49616/ <https://reviews.apache.org/r/49616/ >>> >>> first on HEAD and then with the aforementioned patch applied. I took some >>> lines out to make it easier to see the changes over time in the patched >>> version and to keep this email shorter ;). I would love to get some >>> feedback and discuss any necessary changes to get this patch merged. >>> >>> Here are the results: >>> >>> Mesos HEAD: >>> >>> Using 2000 agents and 200 frameworks >>> round 0 allocate took 3.064665secs to make 199 offers >>> round 1 allocate took 3.029418secs to make 198 offers >>> round 2 allocate took 3.091427secs to make 197 offers >>> round 3 allocate took 2.955457secs to make 196 offers >>> round 4 allocate took 3.133789secs to make 195 offers >>> [...] >>> round 50 allocate took 3.109859secs to make 149 offers >>> round 51 allocate took 3.062746secs to make 148 offers >>> round 52 allocate took 3.146043secs to make 147 offers >>> round 53 allocate took 3.042948secs to make 146 offers >>> round 54 allocate took 3.097835secs to make 145 offers >>> [...] >>> round 100 allocate took 3.027475secs to make 99 offers >>> round 101 allocate took 3.021641secs to make 98 offers >>> round 102 allocate took 2.9853secs to make 97 offers >>> round 103 allocate took 3.145925secs to make 96 offers >>> round 104 allocate took 2.99094secs to make 95 offers >>> [...] >>> round 150 allocate took 3.080406secs to make 49 offers >>> round 151 allocate took 3.109412secs to make 48 offers >>> round 152 allocate took 2.992129secs to make 47 offers >>> round 153 allocate took 3.405642secs to make 46 offers >>> round 154 allocate took 4.153354secs to make 45 offers >>> [...] >>> round 195 allocate took 3.10015secs to make 4 offers >>> round 196 allocate took 3.029347secs to make 3 offers >>> round 197 allocate took 2.982825secs to make 2 offers >>> round 198 allocate took 2.934595secs to make 1 offers >>> round 199 allocate took 313212us to make 0 offers >>> >>> Mesos HEAD + allocator patch: >>> >>> Using 2000 agents and 200 frameworks >>> round 0 allocate took 3.248205secs to make 199 offers >>> round 1 allocate took 3.170852secs to make 198 offers >>> round 2 allocate took 3.135146secs to make 197 offers >>> round 3 allocate took 3.143857secs to make 196 offers >>> round 4 allocate took 3.127641secs to make 195 offers >>> [...] >>> round 50 allocate took 2.492077secs to make 149 offers >>> round 51 allocate took 2.435054secs to make 148 offers >>> round 52 allocate took 2.472204secs to make 147 offers >>> round 53 allocate took 2.457228secs to make 146 offers >>> round 54 allocate took 2.413916secs to make 145 offers >>> [...] >>> round 100 allocate took 1.645015secs to make 99 offers >>> round 101 allocate took 1.647373secs to make 98 offers >>> round 102 allocate took 1.619147secs to make 97 offers >>> round 103 allocate took 1.625496secs to make 96 offers >>> round 104 allocate took 1.580513secs to make 95 offers >>> [...] >>> round 150 allocate took 1.064716secs to make 49 offers >>> round 151 allocate took 1.065604secs to make 48 offers >>> round 152 allocate took 1.053049secs to make 47 offers >>> round 153 allocate took 1.041333secs to make 46 offers >>> round 154 allocate took 1.0461secs to make 45 offers >>> [...] >>> round 195 allocate took 569640us to make 4 offers >>> round 196 allocate took 562107us to make 3 offers >>> round 197 allocate took 547632us to make 2 offers >>> round 198 allocate took 530765us to make 1 offers >>> round 199 allocate took 24426us to make 0 offers >>> >>> -- >>> Dario >>
