[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15063317#comment-15063317
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-898:
--------------------------------------
Github user d2r commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/921#discussion_r47988557
--- Diff:
storm-core/test/jvm/backtype/storm/scheduler/resource/TestResourceAwareScheduler.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,1166 @@
+/**
+ * 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.Config;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.Cluster;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.ExecutorDetails;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.INimbus;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.IScheduler;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.SchedulerAssignment;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.SchedulerAssignmentImpl;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.SupervisorDetails;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.Topologies;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.TopologyDetails;
+import backtype.storm.scheduler.WorkerSlot;
+import backtype.storm.utils.Time;
+import backtype.storm.utils.Utils;
+import backtype.storm.validation.ConfigValidation;
+import org.junit.Assert;
+import org.junit.Test;
+import org.slf4j.Logger;
+import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
+
+import java.util.Collection;
+import java.util.HashMap;
+import java.util.Iterator;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Set;
+
+public class TestResourceAwareScheduler {
+
+ private static final int NUM_SUPS = 20;
+ private static final int NUM_WORKERS_PER_SUP = 4;
+ private final String TOPOLOGY_SUBMITTER = "jerry";
+
+ private static final Logger LOG =
LoggerFactory.getLogger(TestResourceAwareScheduler.class);
+
+ @Test
+ public void TestReadInResourceAwareSchedulerUserPools() {
+
--- End diff --
empty 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)
