Details

    • Epic Name:
      Oversubscription

      Description

      This proposal is predicated upon offer revocation.

      The idea would be to add a new "revoked" status either by (1) piggybacking off an existing status update (TASK_LOST or TASK_KILLED) or (2) introducing a new status update TASK_REVOKED.

      In order to augment an offer with metadata about revocability, there are options:
      1) Add a revocable boolean to the Offer and
      a) offer only one type of Offer per slave at a particular time
      b) offer both revocable and non-revocable resources at the same time but require frameworks to understand that Offers can contain overlapping resources
      2) Add a revocable_resources field on the Offer which is a superset of the regular resources field. By consuming > resources <= revocable_resources in a launchTask, the Task becomes a revocable task. If launching a task with < resources, the Task is non-revocable.

      The use cases for revocable tasks are batch tasks (e.g. hadoop/pig/mapreduce) and non-revocable tasks are online higher-SLA tasks (e.g. services.)

      Consider a non-revocable that asks for 4 cores, 8 GB RAM and 20 GB of disk. One of these resources is a rate (4 cpu seconds per second) and two of them are fixed values (8GB and 20GB respectively, though disk resources can be further broken down into spindles - fixed - and iops - a rate.) In practice, these are the maximum resources in the respective dimensions that this task will use. In reality, we provision tasks at some factor below peak, and only hit peak resource consumption in rare circumstances or perhaps at a diurnal peak.

      In the meantime, we stand to gain from offering the some constant factor of the difference between (reserved - actual) of non-revocable tasks as revocable resources, depending upon our tolerance for revocable task churn. The main challenge is coming up with an accurate short / medium / long-term prediction of resource consumption based upon current behavior.

      In many cases it would be OK to be sloppy:

      • CPU / iops / network IO are rates (compressible) and can often be OK below guarantees for brief periods of time while task revocation takes place
      • Memory slack can be provided by enabling swap and dynamically setting swap paging boundaries. Should swap ever be activated, that would be a signal to revoke.

      The master / allocator would piggyback on the slave heartbeat mechanism to learn of the amount of revocable resources available at any point in time.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                Unassigned
                Reporter:
                wickman brian wickman
              • Votes:
                1 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                19 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved: