Hi all,
Is there anyone have some suggestions about this discuss?
Best,
Yichao Yang
------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????:
"dev"
<[email protected]>;
????????: 2020??7??19??(??????) ????8:29
??????: "dev"<[email protected]>;
????: Re: Re?? [DISCUSS]Load balancing weight
I think the smooth weighted polling algorithm is an enhancement to the
polling algorithm, and they belong to the containment relationship. Perhaps
we should listen to the opinions of other partners in the community?
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
Yichao Yang <[email protected]>??2020??7??19?? ????????6:24??????
> Hi,
>
>
> I got your point. And from the point of the code logic and the functions
> that can be used after code implementation, I agree that the weighted
> polling algorithm is indeed applicable to scenarios without setting
weights.
>
>
> But in terms of module division and architecture design, the weight will
> be coupled into the existing simple round robin algorithm. In fact, the
> weighted round robin&nbsp;algorithm is also a separate algorithm,
which is
> different from the simple&nbsp;round robin&nbsp;algorithm in terms
of
> design[1].
>
>
> What I want to express in my last email[2] is that from the perspective of
> module division and enhancement of module clarity, Is it better
> to&nbsp;introduce weighted rotation training and other algorithms into
new
> algorithms instead of adding weight logic to the previous algorithms?
>
>
>
> --------------
>
>
>
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
>
>
>
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????[1]??
>
>
>
>
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
>
> [1]&nbsp;https://blog.csdn.net/bohu83/article/details/79669051
> [2]&nbsp;
>
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r05005385cd0a52be8e601fd1e76a8dacbf3a24c679a3a435eb1d9c8a%40%3Cdev.dolphinscheduler.apache.org%3E
>
>
> If you have any question or suggetion, welcome to put forward~
>
>
> Best,
> Yichao Yang
>
>
>
>
> ------------------&nbsp;????????&nbsp;------------------
> ??????:
>
"dev"
>
<
> [email protected]&gt;;
> ????????:&nbsp;2020??7??19??(??????) ????5:31
> ??????:&nbsp;"dev"<[email protected]&gt;;
>
> ????:&nbsp;Re: Re?? [DISCUSS]Load balancing weight
>
>
>
> Hi, I think you have misunderstood. In fact, the weighted smooth polling
> algorithm is also suitable for scenarios where no weight is set.
>
> Best&nbsp; wishes??
> CalvinKirs
>
> On 2020/07/19 03:13:10, "Yichao Yang" <[email protected]&gt; wrote:
> &gt; Hi,
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; I got your point.
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; I agree with your about the all algorithms you mentioned should be
> measured by weight. But I think we should keep the original algorithm which
> is not based on weight selection. and the algorithm based on weight should
> appear in a new algorithm.
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; In my opinion. Actually in our production environment, there are
few
> differences in the performance of the machines as you mentioned. In most
> cases, the machine performance and configuration are consistent in our
> production environment.
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; So there are two scenarios for this weight based algorithm. The
first
> one is the one you mentioned. The second may occur when a user wants to use
> half of the performance of machine A, rather than full use of machine A.
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; So is it better to keep the original algorithm and also provide
those
> new selection algorithms based on weight?
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; Best,
> &gt; Yichao Yang
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; ------------------&nbsp;????????&nbsp;------------------
> &gt;
>
??????:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
>
"dev"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
> <[email protected]&gt;;
> &gt; ????????:&nbsp;2020??7??18??(??????) ????10:12
> &gt; ??????:&nbsp;"dev"<[email protected]&gt;;
> &gt;
> &gt; ????:&nbsp;Re: [DISCUSS]Load balancing weight
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; Let me give an example. It might be better. Suppose my computer A
has
> twice
> &gt; the processing power of computer B. Then I have three tasks.
> According to
> &gt; the polling algorithm, A will handle two and B will handle one.
Isn't
> our
> &gt; purpose of load balancing to make each machine work evenly?
> &gt;
> &gt; Best&nbsp; wishes??
> &gt; &nbsp;CalvinKirs&gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; On 2020/07/18 13:56:38, lidong dai <[email protected]&gt; wrote:
> &gt; &gt; I have a little confused about adding a weight to what
you said,
> like&gt;
> &gt; &gt; assign tasks to machines in turn, there is normally no
> weights&gt;
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Best Regards&gt;
> &gt; &gt; ---------------&gt;
> &gt; &gt; DolphinScheduler(Incubator) PPMC&gt;
> &gt; &gt; Lidong Dai ??????&gt;
> &gt; &gt; [email protected]&gt;
> &gt; &gt; ---------------&gt;
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; CalvinKirs <[email protected]&gt; ??2020??7??18??????
????5:55??????&gt;
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; Hi, everyone. I??m currently designing
weight-based load
> balancing. My&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; point of view is that all load balancing needs
to be done
> based on
> &gt; weights,&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; because load actually means that machines with
good
> performance are&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; expected to handle more tasks. Therefore,
weights should be
> Reflected
> &gt; in&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; each load balancing algorithm, it should be a
default
> attribute in
> &gt; load&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; balancing.&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; Hope to get your suggestions.&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; Best&nbsp; wishes??&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; CalvinKirs&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;
