> On April 28, 2016, 6:20 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> > src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/controllers.js, line 139
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/diff/1/?file=1365181#file1365181line139>
> >
> >     I am not too keen on having a column for an optional field that will 
> > most likely read 'default' for all jobs. Perhaps postpone its introduction 
> > until TaskConfig.tier is required?
> 
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>     I thought that leaving it blank would raise more questions for most users 
> who did not use tiers at all (basically the same point that Joshua raised 
> above).
>     
>     I'll leave it blank and we can address that if the need arises.
> 
> Joshua Cohen wrote:
>     I'd be ok with just not shipping this change until TaskConfig.tier is 
> required and users are actually aware of it.
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
>     I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field in 
> user configurations?
> 
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>     > I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field 
> in user configurations?
>     
>     That is correct! :)
>     
>     To put this change in perspective, as was previously agreed upon:
>     1. Aurora users should *never* be required to specify a tier if the 
> default tier suffices for their use. This behavior is similar to how the 
> production flag is defaulted to false.
>     2. The definition of a default tier is managed by the cluster operator 
> since the tier definition file now requires explicitly selecting a "default" 
> tier in the tier configuration file.
>     
>     Given the above, the thought was that making the tier visible in the UI 
> would help socialize the tier concept as well as provide the insight that a 
> 'default' tier was in use even when the job configuration did not explicitly 
> specify a tier.
>     
>     There's 2 other changes I intend to make shortly that will help clarify 
> this from the users' perspective:
>     1. AURORA-1656 "Document tier concept" (filed by serb): I intend to add 
> documentation regarding how the user could get visibility into the tier used 
> for their active jobs. I figured having the UI in place would make that 
> easier.
>     2. AURORA-1686 "Provide visibility into available tiers" (filed moments 
> ago, by me): This will allow hyperlinking the displayed tier to the tier 
> configuration page so that users get better informed about the implication of 
> their tier selection.
>     
>     Let me know if this sounds like a reasonable approach to proceed with.
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     > I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field 
> in user configurations?
>     
>     Right, this is my understanding as well. By 'required' I meant the 
> non-empty thrift value, not user configuration.
>     
>     I am still under opinion we should not over-advertise the Tier concept 
> until we set the default tier in the client (and/or populate it in the 
> scheduler). When we do that, I'd rather see the real assigned tier (e.g. 
> 'preemtible') instead of an anonymous 'default' one. I think having a job 
> config Tier entry should be enough of introduction into the Tier concept at 
> this point without spooking our users by a new Tier column filled with a 
> meaningless 'default' or otherwise completely empty.
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
>     > By 'required' I meant the non-empty thrift value, not user 
> configuration.
>     
>     Slight tangent, but you should consider leaving the thrift value blank as 
> well.  Otherwise, it seems like it would be difficult for an operator to 
> change the default and have it apply to previously-created jobs.

Ah, we were just discussing this very aspect here, internally. I think at this 
point, the discussion/recommendation would be best captured in the gdoc for 
this feature. For now I will:
1. Park this review.
2. Update the gdoc for tier management and send out a notification on the dev 
list.


- Amol


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/#review131028
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 28, 2016, 7:54 p.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 28, 2016, 7:54 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Maxim Khutornenko.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> AURORA-1458: Add tier into the UI "show config" summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/configSummary.html 
> 1af7511de0e8a143c8ea88377aad756b44e3ac30 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/controllers.js 
> 84417ebeadfae57d55b9f12e8a985825bd620fc8 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/services.js 
> d9ce52065f9573b0aa68a95da7da7c50fb14310a 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/schedulingDetail.html 
> eb88c1e6dec7a26643e8b13ffcf8e90df70a67f7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ensured the changes appear in the UI after launching the scheduler using 
> vagrant.
> 
> 
> File Attachments
> ----------------
> 
> Jobs by Role
>   
> https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/04/29/6e58d26d-e77c-49fe-85e0-ee1acae3efe0__Jobs_by_Role.png
> Per Job Config Summary
>   
> https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/04/29/8a666fe7-9a35-427f-b1ee-f41e5413059d__Per_Job_Config_Summary.png
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Amol Deshmukh
> 
>

Reply via email to