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 >> >>
