[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2652?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14627077#comment-14627077
]
Jie Yu commented on MESOS-2652:
-------------------------------
[~kozyraki] Thank you for pointing me the paper. I looked at figure 5. Looks
like you assigned equal share to both BE task and HP task ("Both memcached and
the antagonist are assigned 50% share of the CPU"). I am wondering if you have
tested the scenario where the BE task has a very low share comparing to the HP
task (e.g., 1:100)?
It was mentioned in the paper that:
{quote}Coming back to Fig. 5, this fully explains why memcached achieves good
quality of service when its load is lower than 12%; it is accumulating virtual
runtime more slowly than the square-wave workload and always staying behind, so
it never gets preempted when the square-wave workload wakes{quote}
I am wondering if you assign low share to BE task, will its vruntime run much
faster and stay ahead of the HP task?
> Update Mesos containerizer to understand revocable cpu resources
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MESOS-2652
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2652
> Project: Mesos
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Vinod Kone
> Assignee: Ian Downes
> Labels: twitter
> Fix For: 0.23.0
>
> Attachments: Abnormal performance with 3 additional revocable tasks
> (1).png, Abnormal performance with 3 additional revocable tasks (2).png,
> Abnormal performance with 3 additional revocable tasks (3).png, Abnormal
> performance with 3 additional revocable tasks (4).png, Abnormal performance
> with 3 additional revocable tasks (5).png, Abnormal performance with 3
> additional revocable tasks (6).png, Abnormal performance with 3 additional
> revocable tasks (7).png, Performance improvement after reducing cpu.share to
> 2 for revocable tasks (1).png, Performance improvement after reducing
> cpu.share to 2 for revocable tasks (10).png, Performance improvement after
> reducing cpu.share to 2 for revocable tasks (2).png, Performance improvement
> after reducing cpu.share to 2 for revocable tasks (3).png, Performance
> improvement after reducing cpu.share to 2 for revocable tasks (4).png,
> Performance improvement after reducing cpu.share to 2 for revocable tasks
> (5).png, Performance improvement after reducing cpu.share to 2 for revocable
> tasks (6).png, Performance improvement after reducing cpu.share to 2 for
> revocable tasks (7).png, Performance improvement after reducing cpu.share to
> 2 for revocable tasks (8).png, Performance improvement after reducing
> cpu.share to 2 for revocable tasks (9).png
>
>
> The CPU isolator needs to properly set limits for revocable and non-revocable
> containers.
> The proposed strategy is to use a two-way split of the cpu cgroup hierarchy
> -- normal (non-revocable) and low priority (revocable) subtrees -- and to use
> a biased split of CFS cpu.shares across the subtrees, e.g., a 20:1 split
> (TBD). Containers would be present in only one of the subtrees. CFS quotas
> will *not* be set on subtree roots, only cpu.shares. Each container would set
> CFS quota and shares as done currently.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
