[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15058820#comment-15058820
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-898:
--------------------------------------
Github user rfarivar commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/921#discussion_r47698615
--- Diff:
storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/validation/ConfigValidation.java ---
@@ -489,17 +489,62 @@ public void validateField(String name, Object o) {
public static class PacemakerAuthTypeValidator extends Validator {
@Override
public void validateField(String name, Object o) {
- if(o == null) {
- throw new IllegalArgumentException( "Field " + name + "
must be set.");
+ if (o == null) {
+ throw new IllegalArgumentException("Field " + name + "
must be set.");
+ }
+
+ if (o instanceof String &&
+ (((String) o).equals("NONE") ||
+ ((String) o).equals("DIGEST") ||
+ ((String) o).equals("KERBEROS"))) {
+ return;
+ }
+ throw new IllegalArgumentException("Field " + name + " must be
one of \"NONE\", \"DIGEST\", or \"KERBEROS\"");
+ }
+ }
+
+ public static class UserResourcePoolEntryValidator extends Validator {
+
+ @Override
+ public void validateField(String name, Object o) {
+ if (o == null) {
+ return;
+ }
+ SimpleTypeValidator.validateField(name, Map.class, o);
+ if (!((Map) o).containsKey("cpu")) {
+ throw new IllegalArgumentException("Field " + name + "
must have map entry with key: cpu");
}
+ if (!((Map) o).containsKey("memory")) {
+ throw new IllegalArgumentException("Field " + name + "
must have map entry with key: memory");
+ }
+
+ SimpleTypeValidator.validateField(name, Number.class, ((Map)
o).get("cpu"));
+ SimpleTypeValidator.validateField(name, Number.class, ((Map)
o).get("memory"));
+ }
+ }
+
+ public static class ImplementsClassValidator extends Validator {
+
+ Class classImplements;
+
+ public ImplementsClassValidator(Map<String, Object> params) {
+ this.classImplements = (Class)
params.get(ConfigValidationAnnotations.ValidatorParams.IMPLEMENTS_CLASS);
+ }
- if(o instanceof String &&
- (((String)o).equals("NONE") ||
- ((String)o).equals("DIGEST") ||
- ((String)o).equals("KERBEROS"))) {
+ @Override
+ public void validateField(String name, Object o) {
+ if (o == null) {
return;
}
- throw new IllegalArgumentException( "Field " + name + " must
be one of \"NONE\", \"DIGEST\", or \"KERBEROS\"");
+ SimpleTypeValidator.validateField(name, String.class, o);
+ try {
+ Class objectClass = Class.forName((String) o);
+ if (!this.classImplements.isAssignableFrom(objectClass)) {
+ throw new IllegalArgumentException("Field " + name + "
with value " + o + " does not implement " + this.classImplements.getName());
--- End diff --
long line
> 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)
