> On Jan. 11, 2016, 3:42 p.m., Zhitao Li wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/OfferAllocation.java, line 188 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42126/diff/1/?file=1191434#file1191434line188> > > > > Hmm, I think I'd like to keep this for two reasons: > > > > 1. Even though only one callsite uses value other than `false`, the > > `false` value still dictates a `Predicate` to use, so we'll have more code > > duplicate if we move this out; > > 2. Right now aurora only supports `cpus` as revocable resource. I > > actually wanted to discuss this separately as current prediction in our > > company indicates that we might be more memory bounded. In such a case, we > > could be using memory as revocable resources, too.
> Even though only one callsite uses value other than false, the false value > still dictates a Predicate to use, so we'll have more code duplicate if we > move this out Not sure i agree with the code duplication, but i will follow up on the next patch draft. > ...we might be more memory bounded. In such a case, we could be using memory > as revocable resources, too. I'm not sure if that is possible, but it definitely is not recommended. http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/oversubscription/ > It is recommended only to oversubscribe compressible resources such as cpu > shares, bandwidth, etc. > On Jan. 11, 2016, 3:42 p.m., Zhitao Li wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/MesosTaskFactory.java, line > > 120 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42126/diff/1/?file=1191437#file1191437line120> > > > > I don't plan on any further usage of the interface other than here in > > this series of patches. > > > > The only possible customization that could happen is the reverse > > ordering of resource preference (`'*'` vs `reserved role`) but I'd like to > > withhold it until someone request such feature. > > > > I think I'll keep the interface definition, change the > > `AcceptedOfferImpl` to package private, and use a factory method anyway. We > > can revisit this later. How does this sound? I will follow up on the latest draft. - Bill ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42126/#review113862 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 11, 2016, 6:29 p.m., Zhitao Li wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/42126/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 11, 2016, 6:29 p.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora, Maxim Khutornenko, Dmitriy Shirchenko, and Bill > Farner. > > > Bugs: AURORA-1109 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1109 > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > This review is a prototype for introducing multiple role support in Aurora. > This creates a new interface OfferAllocation (with implementation), which > allcoates resources to resources field in TaskInfo and ExecutorInfo from an > offer. > > Current implementation prefers reserved resources over shared resources ('*' > role) if both are present. This can be customized with a differnet > comparator from PREFER_RESERVED in the future when needed. > > Several caveats: > 1. This performs the allocate after scheduling decision in > TaskAssigner.maybeAssign is done, which leaves possibility of inconsistency > and late failure; > 2. Old code used to construct resources has not been cleaned up yet; > 3. OfferAllocationImpl's constructor allows to throw, which is a bit awkward. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/AcceptedOffer.java PRE-CREATION > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/ResourceSlot.java > 7c3d681c216b78eeecebbe950186e5a79c6fe982 > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/Resources.java > db422a959ee7b982c2a44323de41ad75d1a40754 > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/CommandLineDriverSettingsModule.java > 2255dd407cd1810c7df5baf17cfa85f79bfffeb8 > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/MesosTaskFactory.java > 8fdadda67478bb3110aa442b7d78493cf9c3edb4 > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/state/TaskAssigner.java > 7e8e456e288986eb0ce92a123b294e1e25d8ed18 > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/AcceptedOfferImplTest.java > PRE-CREATION > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/ResourceSlotTest.java > e4ae943303823ac4bfbe999ed22f5999484462d8 > > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/CommandLineDriverSettingsModuleTest.java > 33149ab415292eff04f38b61f2b1d1eac79f347a > > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/MesosTaskFactoryImplTest.java > a5793bffabf4e5d6195b1b99f2363d241c0cecf9 > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/state/TaskAssignerImplTest.java > 3cbe9acd75def14ae2e0986914ba621fb164b3e4 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42126/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > 1. Unit tested with old and new tests; > 2. vagrant integration tests: I manually separate out the vagrant box's cpu > and memory between 'aurora-test' role and '*' and verified that jobs can > still be launched (I can post the vagrant change in another follow upon > request). > > > Thanks, > > Zhitao Li > >
