dynamic host volumes: node selection via constraints #24518
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tgross
force-pushed
the
dhv-rpc-volume-placement
branch
from
822d291 to
ff4ab14
Compare
tgross
force-pushed
the
dhv-rpc-volume-placement
branch
from
ff4ab14 to
11d281e
Compare
tgross
force-pushed
the
dhv-rpc-volume-placement
branch
from
11d281e to
7a6cecb
Compare
gulducat
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2024
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for { | ||
| raw := iter.Next() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't recall how our binpacking algorithm works for allocs. is it like this, where it's just whatever order comes out of state? I suspect, based on no real evidence, that folks won't want to binpack volumes the same way, unless they are the kind of volume that has a disk space limit, and we placed them based on available disk space.
basically, if I'm reading this right, this feels like a recipe for a full disk alert waking someone up.
I suppose their main mechanisms to avoid this would be to
- use careful explicit constraints, which seems a little IAC-unfriendly, if they'd need a lot of specs?
- reuse the same vol name a lot, so each instance lands on a distinct host
any other considerations I'm missing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For allocs in the general scheduler (batch/service), we:
- find all the nodes in the node pool and DC
- shuffle them
- iterate over them until we find 2 that are feasible (or a lot more than 2 for jobs with
spread) - pick the best of 2
When using spread, we iterate over enough nodes to guarantee we're not putting allocs for the same job on the same host, which is effectively what we're doing here. Operators are going to want to spread volumes with the same "purpose" out because of failure domains. If the node is full, then the plugin will tell us that and we'll get an error back.
tgross
force-pushed
the
dynamic-host-volumes
branch
from
a3784ca to
83de356
Compare
When making a request to create a dynamic host volumes, users can pass a node pool and constraints instead of a specific node ID. This changeset implements a node scheduling logic by instantiating a filter by node pool and constraint checker borrowed from the scheduler package. Because host volumes with the same name can't land on the same host, we don't need to support `distinct_hosts`/`distinct_property`; this would be challenging anyways without building out a much larger node iteration mechanism to keep track of usage across multiple hosts. Ref: #24479
tgross
force-pushed
the
dhv-rpc-volume-placement
branch
from
7a6cecb to
b2b39b8
Compare
tgross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2024
When making a request to create a dynamic host volumes, users can pass a node pool and constraints instead of a specific node ID. This changeset implements a node scheduling logic by instantiating a filter by node pool and constraint checker borrowed from the scheduler package. Because host volumes with the same name can't land on the same host, we don't need to support `distinct_hosts`/`distinct_property`; this would be challenging anyways without building out a much larger node iteration mechanism to keep track of usage across multiple hosts. Ref: #24479
tgross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2024
When making a request to create a dynamic host volumes, users can pass a node pool and constraints instead of a specific node ID. This changeset implements a node scheduling logic by instantiating a filter by node pool and constraint checker borrowed from the scheduler package. Because host volumes with the same name can't land on the same host, we don't need to support `distinct_hosts`/`distinct_property`; this would be challenging anyways without building out a much larger node iteration mechanism to keep track of usage across multiple hosts. Ref: #24479
tgross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2024
When making a request to create a dynamic host volumes, users can pass a node pool and constraints instead of a specific node ID. This changeset implements a node scheduling logic by instantiating a filter by node pool and constraint checker borrowed from the scheduler package. Because host volumes with the same name can't land on the same host, we don't need to support `distinct_hosts`/`distinct_property`; this would be challenging anyways without building out a much larger node iteration mechanism to keep track of usage across multiple hosts. Ref: #24479
tgross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2024
When making a request to create a dynamic host volumes, users can pass a node pool and constraints instead of a specific node ID. This changeset implements a node scheduling logic by instantiating a filter by node pool and constraint checker borrowed from the scheduler package. Because host volumes with the same name can't land on the same host, we don't need to support `distinct_hosts`/`distinct_property`; this would be challenging anyways without building out a much larger node iteration mechanism to keep track of usage across multiple hosts. Ref: #24479
tgross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 19, 2024
When making a request to create a dynamic host volumes, users can pass a node pool and constraints instead of a specific node ID. This changeset implements a node scheduling logic by instantiating a filter by node pool and constraint checker borrowed from the scheduler package. Because host volumes with the same name can't land on the same host, we don't need to support `distinct_hosts`/`distinct_property`; this would be challenging anyways without building out a much larger node iteration mechanism to keep track of usage across multiple hosts. Ref: #24479
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When making a request to create a dynamic host volume, users can pass a node pool and constraints instead of a specific node ID.
This changeset implements a node scheduling logic by instantiating a filter by node pool and constraint checker borrowed from the scheduler package. Because host volumes with the same name can't land on the same host, we don't need to support
distinct_hosts/distinct_property; this would be challenging anyways without building out a much larger node iteration mechanism to keep track of usage across multiple hosts.Ref: #24479