> On Sept. 3, 2015, 1:27 a.m., Suman Karumuri wrote:
> > api/src/main/thrift/org/apache/aurora/gen/api.thrift, line 369
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38081/diff/1/?file=1062906#file1062906line369>
> >
> >     I think it will be better if we split this into 
> > nonProdSharedConsumption and nonProdDedicatedConsumption.
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     This may be an option to consider in future but it does not fit the scope 
> of this change.
> 
> Suman Karumuri wrote:
>     Is there a strong reason, not to split the non prod consumption into 
> shared and dedicated pools since we already do it for prod jobs? I think we 
> should expose this info now when we are making the split between dedicated 
> and shared pool. Delaying it will involve a lot more effort later. If we 
> choose not to expose this infortion separately in the UI, the UI can add up 
> nonProdDedicatedConsumption and nonProdSharedPoolConsumption into the same 
> field. But going the other way around would be a lot more work. 
>     
>     I also feel we should decide on the UI design now and implement the API 
> accordingly.
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     | Is there a strong reason, not to split the non prod consumption into 
> shared and dedicated pools since we already do it for prod jobs?
>     
>     I just don't want to increase the size of this diff and add changes 
> irrelevant to the subject matter. I am open to consider adding it separately.
>     
>     Also, the approach of adding prod/non-prod dedicated consumption does not 
> scale given our upcoming migration to task tiers. There is a good chance this 
> structure will have to be dropped entirely in favor of something like this 
> (just to illustrate the direction):
>     ```
>     struct TierResources {
>       1: string taskTier
>       2: ResourceAggregate quota
>       3: ResourceAggregate consumption
>     }
>     
>     struct GetQuotaResultNew {
>       1: map<string, TierResources> resourcesByTier
>     }
>     ```
>     
>     In the above example, a "non-prod dedicated" could be a completely 
> separate tier (though does not have to be). This is the reason I was 
> hesistant adding prod/nonprod consumption split in the first place, hence my 
> comment in the description. I wonder what others think?
>     
>     | But going the other way around would be a lot more work. I also feel we 
> should decide on the UI design now and implement the API accordingly.
>     
>     I don't buy this argument. There is nothing preventing us from 
> implementing the UI the way we want and iterate accordingly.
> 
> Zameer Manji wrote:
>     Maxim,
>     
>     Is this possible change tracked apart of the tier work? If not, I really 
> think a ticket for this should be created so we don't forget about this.

Thanks for the explanation. I like the TieredResources struct approach. As a 
service owner though, I would like to see non-prod dedicated consumption and 
prod dedicated consumption. That would clearly tell me the amount of resources 
I am using for prod and non-prod.

+1 for tracking this in a ticket as part of task tiers implementation.


- Suman


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38081/#review97593
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 3, 2015, 12:46 a.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/38081/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 3, 2015, 12:46 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen, Bill Farner, and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-1460
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1460
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This change drops quota enforcement for dedicated jobs and adds dedicated 
> resource consumption into the thrift API. Feel free to pushback on the latter 
> but I think users will find it immediately confusing when we change the "Prod 
> consumption" to something like "Prod shared pool consumption" in the 
> UI/client and not provide the missing dedicated rollup numbers.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   api/src/main/thrift/org/apache/aurora/gen/api.thrift 
> 21137bbbdc3010c6b1e2cc0ebb3b99bfa8490563 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/quota/QuotaInfo.java 
> b40ecd0af7c1d1bb9372bd89c741622ce4c9040c 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/quota/QuotaManager.java 
> 8787aeaa6655cfab1e0a6d5719f9e08a89df7631 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/ReadOnlySchedulerImpl.java 
> 3d89e43659750de63d7588f8574e7a350caea04b 
>   src/main/python/apache/aurora/client/api/quota_check.py 
> 75406ac1d3ec9ba655daf7c6125f208f74290cfb 
>   src/main/python/apache/aurora/client/cli/quota.py 
> e8aa010f5ecce0464a8ad6b072bccba589fe16d7 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/controllers.js 
> 98920196db34f2eb4dcad93429274517e7383efe 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/quota/QuotaManagerImplTest.java 
> db60cd21d06d636505202bac7277a13dc24d46e6 
>   
> src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/ReadOnlySchedulerImplTest.java
>  4d4e752088f7dca99675cc66782ae046bbd516d6 
>   src/test/python/apache/aurora/admin/test_admin.py 
> d793293acc7f77c0081968334c38b984d865fbc8 
>   src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/test_quota_check.py 
> 6c9bc373d1868bd6e0cae2f2218261f39fd7ab8f 
>   src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/cli/test_quota.py 
> 3573e4c4575577e2232d2b99ca781b06a03d48d7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38081/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko
> 
>

Reply via email to