After syncing with Vinod, we're ok adding this change in the interim. We do want a clear comment in the implementation of suppress explaining that this is a special case and that we will need separate handling if this call becomes parameterized in the future.
Let me know (ping in mesos slack?) when you feel a sufficient explanation is updated in the patch and I'll schedule time to review them. Joris — *Joris Van Remoortere* Mesosphere On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Dario Rexin <[email protected]> wrote: > A bit more context: > > We have a very high number of frameworks on our clusters. In some cases > ~6k. The biggest problem is the sort method, which has a complexity of O(n > log n) and is called n*m times, where n = number of agents and m = number > of roles. So in total we have a complexity of O(n^3 log n). I think > reducing n is the most promising optimization here. We have been running > this patch in production for quite a while now and have seen huge > improvements in general allocation time and also in failover times. > > Also, if we were to add a parameterized version of SUPPRESS, what problems > do you see with just differentiating between the two cases? > > Thanks, > -- > Dario > > > On Jul 7, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Dario Rexin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > >>> > >
