I am cautious about merging createJob and startJobUpdate as we don't
support updates of adhoc jobs. It's logically unclear what adhoc job update
would mean as adhoc job instances are not intended to survive terminal
state.
Even if we decided to do so I am afraid it would not help with the scenario
of creating a new heterogeneous job as the updater only supports a single
TaskConfig target.
Speaking broadly, Aurora is built around the idea of homogenous jobs. It's
possible to have different task configs to support canaries and update
rolls but we treat that state as *temporary* until config reconciliation
completes.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:03 AM, David McLaughlin <dmclaugh...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Min,
>
> I'd prefer to add support for ad-hoc jobs to startJobUpdate and completely
> remove the notion of job create.
>
> " Also, even the
> > StartJobUpdate API is not scalable to a job with 10K ~ 100K task
> instances
> > and each instance has different task config since we will have to invoke
> > StartJobUpdate for each distinct task config."
>
>
> What is the use case for that? Aurora was designed to have those as
> separate jobs.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Min Cai <min...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey fellow Aurora team:
> >
> > We would like to propose a simple and backwards compatible feature in
> > CreateJob API so that we can support instance-specific TaskConfigs. The
> use
> > case here is for an Adhoc job which has different resource settings as
> well
> > as different command line arguments for each task instance. Aurora today
> > already support heterogenous tasks for the same job via StartJobUpdate
> API,
> > i.e. we can update the job instances to use different task configs. This
> > works reasonably well for long running tasks like Services. However, it
> is
> > not feasible for Adhoc jobs where each task will finish right away before
> > we even have a chance to invoke StartJobUpdate. Also, even the
> > StartJobUpdate API is not scalable to a job with 10K ~ 100K task
> instances
> > and each instance has different task config since we will have to invoke
> > StartJobUpdate for each distinct task config.
> >
> > The proposal we have is to add an optional field in JobConfiguration for
> > instance specific task config. It will be override the default task
> config
> > for given instance ID ranges if specific. Otherwise, everything will be
> > backwards compatibility as current API. The implementation of this change
> > also seems to be very simple. We only need to plumb instance specific
> tasks
> > configs when we call statemanager.insertPendingTasks in
> > SchedulerThriftInterface.createJob function.
> >
> > /**
> > * Description of an Aurora job. One task will be scheduled for each
> > instance within the job.
> > */
> > @@ -328,13 +343,17 @@ struct JobConfiguration {
> > 4: string cronSchedule
> > /** Collision policy to use when handling overlapping cron runs.
> > Default is KILL_EXISTING. */
> > 5: CronCollisionPolicy cronCollisionPolicy
> > - /** Task configuration for this job. */
> > + /** Default task configuration for all instances of this job. */
> > 6: TaskConfig taskConfig
> > /**
> > * The number of instances in the job. Generated instance IDs for
> tasks
> > will be in the range
> > * [0, instances).
> > */
> > 8: i32 instanceCount
> > + /**
> > + * The instance specific task configs that override the default task
> > config for given
> > + * instanceId ranges.
> > + */
> > + 10: optional set<InstanceTaskConfig> instanceTaskConfigs
> > }
> >
> > Please let us know your comments and suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks, - Min
> >
>
