A bit more context: We have a very high number of frameworks on our clusters. In some cases ~6k. The biggest problem is the sort method, which has a complexity of O(n log n) and is called n*m times, where n = number of agents and m = number of roles. So in total we have a complexity of O(n^3 log n). I think reducing n is the most promising optimization here. We have been running this patch in production for quite a while now and have seen huge improvements in general allocation time and also in failover times.
Also, if we were to add a parameterized version of SUPPRESS, what problems do you see with just differentiating between the two cases? Thanks, -- Dario > On Jul 7, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Dario Rexin <dre...@apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Joris, > > I still don't really understand why we would parameterize SUPPRESS, to me > that sounds like a case for filters. The idea of SUPPRESS was to completely > stop getting offers. > > Could you please explain why you think the patch is a hack? To me it just > seems logical to not sort frameworks that don't need to be considered in the > allocator. > > Thanks, > Dario > >> On 07.07.2016, at 7:38 AM, Joris Van Remoortere <jo...@mesosphere.io> wrote: >> >> The reason that SUPPRESS doesn't just deactivate is because the intent was >> to be able to parameterize this call. At that point the change wouldn't >> work without turning this in to 2 cases. >> >> I have asked to look at what a parameterized suppress would like and >> understand the performance impact of that before we do this. >> Have we reached consensus that there's no way to implement a generic >> parameterized suppress that is performant? >> >> There are some refactorings that we had discussed with James, Jacob, and >> Ian that seem like lower hanging fruit. After those are made it might be >> worth reconsidering whether we need to do this hack. >> >> >> >> — >> *Joris Van Remoortere* >> Mesosphere >> >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Guangya Liu <gyliu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ben and Dario, >>> >>> The reason that we have "SUPPRESS" call is as following: >>> 1) Act as the complement to the current REVIVE call. >>> 2) The HTTP API do not have an API to "Deactivate" a framework, we want to >>> use "SUPPRESS", "DECLINE" and "DECLINE_INVERSE_OFFERS" to implement the >>> call for "DeactivateFrameworkMessage". >>> >>> You can also refer to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3037 for >>> detail. >>> >>> So I think that Dario's patch is good, we should remove the framework >>> clients when "SUPPRESS" and add the framework client back when "REVIVE". to >>> ignore those frameworks from sorter. >>> >>> @Viond, any comments for this? >>> >>> @Ben, for your concern of the benchmark test result is not easy to >>> understand, I have filed a JIRA ticket here >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5800 to trace. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Guangya >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Dario Rexin <dre...@apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Vinod, >>>> >>>> thanks for your reply. The reason it’s so much faster is because the >>>> sorting is a lot faster with fewer frameworks. Looping shouldn’t make a >>>> huge difference, as it used to just skip over the deactivated frameworks. >>>> >>>> I don’t know what effects deactivating the framework in the master would >>>> have. The framework is still active and listening for events / sending >>>> calls. Could you please elaborate? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -- >>>> Dario >>>> >>>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Benjamin Mahler <bmah...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> +implementer and shepherd of SUPPRESS >>>> >>>> Is there any reason we didn't already just "deactivate" frameworks that >>>> were suppressing offers? That seems to be the natural implementation, >>>> performance aside, because the meaning of "deactivated" is: not being >>> sent >>>> any offers. The patch you posted seems to only take this half-way: >>> suppress >>>> = deactivation in the allocator, but not in the master. >>>> >>>> Also, Dario it's a bit hard to interpret these numbers without reading >>> the >>>> benchmark code. My interpretation of these numbers is that this change >>>> makes the allocation loop complete more quickly when there are many >>>> frameworks that are in the suppressed state, because we have to loop over >>>> fewer clients. Is this an accurate interpretation? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Dario Rexin <dre...@apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I would like to revive https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4694 >>> < >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4694>, especially >>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/43666/ <https://reviews.apache.org/r/43666/ >>>> . >>>> We heavily depend on this patch and would love to see it merged. To show >>>> the value of this patch, I ran the benchmark from >>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49616/ <https://reviews.apache.org/r/49616/ >>>> >>>> first on HEAD and then with the aforementioned patch applied. I took some >>>> lines out to make it easier to see the changes over time in the patched >>>> version and to keep this email shorter ;). I would love to get some >>>> feedback and discuss any necessary changes to get this patch merged. >>>> >>>> Here are the results: >>>> >>>> Mesos HEAD: >>>> >>>> Using 2000 agents and 200 frameworks >>>> round 0 allocate took 3.064665secs to make 199 offers >>>> round 1 allocate took 3.029418secs to make 198 offers >>>> round 2 allocate took 3.091427secs to make 197 offers >>>> round 3 allocate took 2.955457secs to make 196 offers >>>> round 4 allocate took 3.133789secs to make 195 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 50 allocate took 3.109859secs to make 149 offers >>>> round 51 allocate took 3.062746secs to make 148 offers >>>> round 52 allocate took 3.146043secs to make 147 offers >>>> round 53 allocate took 3.042948secs to make 146 offers >>>> round 54 allocate took 3.097835secs to make 145 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 100 allocate took 3.027475secs to make 99 offers >>>> round 101 allocate took 3.021641secs to make 98 offers >>>> round 102 allocate took 2.9853secs to make 97 offers >>>> round 103 allocate took 3.145925secs to make 96 offers >>>> round 104 allocate took 2.99094secs to make 95 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 150 allocate took 3.080406secs to make 49 offers >>>> round 151 allocate took 3.109412secs to make 48 offers >>>> round 152 allocate took 2.992129secs to make 47 offers >>>> round 153 allocate took 3.405642secs to make 46 offers >>>> round 154 allocate took 4.153354secs to make 45 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 195 allocate took 3.10015secs to make 4 offers >>>> round 196 allocate took 3.029347secs to make 3 offers >>>> round 197 allocate took 2.982825secs to make 2 offers >>>> round 198 allocate took 2.934595secs to make 1 offers >>>> round 199 allocate took 313212us to make 0 offers >>>> >>>> Mesos HEAD + allocator patch: >>>> >>>> Using 2000 agents and 200 frameworks >>>> round 0 allocate took 3.248205secs to make 199 offers >>>> round 1 allocate took 3.170852secs to make 198 offers >>>> round 2 allocate took 3.135146secs to make 197 offers >>>> round 3 allocate took 3.143857secs to make 196 offers >>>> round 4 allocate took 3.127641secs to make 195 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 50 allocate took 2.492077secs to make 149 offers >>>> round 51 allocate took 2.435054secs to make 148 offers >>>> round 52 allocate took 2.472204secs to make 147 offers >>>> round 53 allocate took 2.457228secs to make 146 offers >>>> round 54 allocate took 2.413916secs to make 145 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 100 allocate took 1.645015secs to make 99 offers >>>> round 101 allocate took 1.647373secs to make 98 offers >>>> round 102 allocate took 1.619147secs to make 97 offers >>>> round 103 allocate took 1.625496secs to make 96 offers >>>> round 104 allocate took 1.580513secs to make 95 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 150 allocate took 1.064716secs to make 49 offers >>>> round 151 allocate took 1.065604secs to make 48 offers >>>> round 152 allocate took 1.053049secs to make 47 offers >>>> round 153 allocate took 1.041333secs to make 46 offers >>>> round 154 allocate took 1.0461secs to make 45 offers >>>> [...] >>>> round 195 allocate took 569640us to make 4 offers >>>> round 196 allocate took 562107us to make 3 offers >>>> round 197 allocate took 547632us to make 2 offers >>>> round 198 allocate took 530765us to make 1 offers >>>> round 199 allocate took 24426us to make 0 offers >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dario >>>
