[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15042067#comment-15042067
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-898:
--------------------------------------

Github user jerrypeng commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/921#discussion_r46722794
  
    --- Diff: 
storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/scheduler/resource/SchedulingResult.java ---
    @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
    +/**
    + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
    + * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
    + * distributed with this work for additional information
    + * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
    + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
    + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
    + * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
    + * <p>
    + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
    + * <p>
    + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
    + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
    + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
    + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
    + * limitations under the License.
    + */
    +
    +package backtype.storm.scheduler.resource;
    +
    +import backtype.storm.scheduler.ExecutorDetails;
    +import backtype.storm.scheduler.WorkerSlot;
    +import org.slf4j.Logger;
    +import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
    +
    +import java.util.Collection;
    +import java.util.Map;
    +
    +public class SchedulingResult {
    +
    +    //contains the result for the attempted scheduling
    +    private Map<WorkerSlot, Collection<ExecutorDetails>> 
schedulingResultMap = null;
    +
    +    private SchedulingStatus status = null;
    +
    +    private String message = null;
    +
    +    private String errorMessage = null;
    +
    +    private static final Logger LOG = 
LoggerFactory.getLogger(SchedulingResult.class);
    +
    +
    +    public SchedulingResult(SchedulingStatus status, Map<WorkerSlot, 
Collection<ExecutorDetails>> schedulingResultMap, String message, String 
errorMessage) {
    +        this.status = status;
    +        this.schedulingResultMap = schedulingResultMap;
    +        this.message = message;
    +        this.errorMessage = errorMessage;
    +    }
    +
    +    public static SchedulingResult failure(SchedulingStatus status, String 
errorMessage) {
    +        return new SchedulingResult(status, null, null, errorMessage);
    +    }
    +
    +    public static SchedulingResult success(Map<WorkerSlot, 
Collection<ExecutorDetails>> schedulingResultMap) {
    +        return SchedulingResult.successWithMsg(schedulingResultMap, null);
    +    }
    +
    +    public static SchedulingResult successWithMsg(Map<WorkerSlot, 
Collection<ExecutorDetails>> schedulingResultMap, String message) {
    +        if (schedulingResultMap == null) {
    +            throw new IllegalStateException("Cannot declare scheduling 
success without providing a non null scheduling map!");
    +        }
    +        return new SchedulingResult(SchedulingStatus.SUCCESS, 
schedulingResultMap, message, null);
    +    }
    +
    +    public SchedulingStatus getStatus() {
    +        return this.status;
    +    }
    +
    +    public String getMessage() {
    +        return this.message;
    +    }
    +
    +    public String getErrorMessage() {
    +        return this.errorMessage;
    +    }
    +
    +    public Map<WorkerSlot, Collection<ExecutorDetails>> 
getSchedulingResultMap() {
    +        return schedulingResultMap;
    +    }
    +
    +    public boolean isSuccess() {
    +        return SchedulingStatus.isStatusSuccess(this.status);
    +    }
    +
    +    public boolean isFailure() {
    +        return SchedulingStatus.isStatusFailure(this.status);
    +    }
    +
    +    public boolean isValid() {
    +        if (this.isSuccess() && this.getSchedulingResultMap() == null) {
    +            LOG.warn("SchedulingResult not Valid! Status is success but 
SchedulingResultMap is null");
    +            return false;
    +        }
    +        if (this.isFailure() && this.getSchedulingResultMap() != null) {
    +            LOG.warn("SchedulingResult not Valid! Status is Failure but 
SchedulingResultMap is NOT null");
    +            return false;
    +        }
    +        return true;
    +    }
    +
    +    @Override
    +    public String toString() {
    +        String ret = "";
    +        if(this.isSuccess()) {
    +            ret += "Status: " + this.getStatus() + " message: " + 
this.getMessage() + " scheduling: " + this.getSchedulingResultMap().toString();
    --- End diff --
    
    will change


> Add priorities and per user resource guarantees to Resource Aware Scheduler
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: STORM-898
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-898
>             Project: Apache Storm
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: storm-core
>            Reporter: Robert Joseph Evans
>            Assignee: Boyang Jerry Peng
>         Attachments: Resource Aware Scheduler for Storm.pdf
>
>
> In a multi-tenant environment we would like to be able to give individual 
> users a guarantee of how much CPU/Memory/Network they will be able to use in 
> a cluster.  We would also like to know which topologies a user feels are the 
> most important to keep running if there are not enough resources to run all 
> of their topologies.
> Each user should be able to specify if their topology is production, staging, 
> or development. Within each of those categories a user should be able to give 
> a topology a priority, 0 to 10 with 10 being the highest priority (or 
> something like this).
> If there are not enough resources on a cluster to run a topology assume this 
> topology is running using resources and find the user that is most over their 
> guaranteed resources.  Shoot the lowest priority topology for that user, and 
> repeat until, this topology is able to run, or this topology would be the one 
> shot.   Ideally we don't actually shoot anything until we know that we would 
> have made enough room.
> If the cluster is over-subscribed and everyone is under their guarantee, and 
> this topology would not put the user over their guarantee.  Shoot the lowest 
> priority topology in this workers resource pool until there is enough room to 
> run the topology or this topology is the one that would be shot.  We might 
> also want to think about what to do if we are going to shoot a production 
> topology in an oversubscribed case, and perhaps we can shoot a non-production 
> topology instead even if the other user is not over their guarantee.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to