It would also be helpful to capture the goals we hope to achieve with the integration. We should also assess the risk of bringing it in, specifically that we won't be left maintaining it (currently it's 100% owned by netflix, mostly 1 developer AFAICT).
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Erb, Stephan <stephan....@blue-yonder.com> wrote: > Someone also expressed interest in Fenzo by adding it to the > community-driven roadmap [1]. > > AFAIK nobody has looked at in in detail, yet. Or at least nobody has > posted about it on the mailinglist. Feel free to be that someone and take a > closer look at what would be necessary to leverage the power of Fenzo in > Aurora :-) > > Without checking, I would assume that the following areas might need the > most effort to address: > * the preemption mechanism of Aurora to make room for priority/production > jobs > * the work-in-progress feature using oversubscribed resources [2] > > Regards, > Stephan > > [1] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vyhTZSlEPeibQm2_7HK6JXOkydO0ZllZNQZ2O3cC4_0/edit?usp=sharing > [2] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r1WCHgmPJp5wbrqSZLsgtxPNj3sULfHrSFmxp2GyPTo/edit?pref=2&pli=1#heading=h.af56b6bntcao > > ________________________________________ > From: Mauricio Garavaglia <mauriciogaravag...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:02 AM > To: dev@aurora.apache.org > Subject: AURORA-1440 Evaluate Fenzo scheduling library > > Hello, > > I found the issue AURORA-1440 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1440> about evaluating fenzo > to replace the scheduling algorithm. Has there been any progress on it? is > the intention just replace the implementation or also expose part of the > configurations that fenzo allows? > > It would be handy to be able to select, for example, between cpu bin > packing and memory bin packing. But also take advantage of the rich > scheduling constraints api that it has. I assume a lot of discussion would > be needed regarding how to expose them though :) > Thanks > > > Mauricio >
