Mailing-List: contact reviews-help@aurora.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: reviews@aurora.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============5818922546945729685=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Review Request 33689: Updated scheduler to process status updates
 asynchronously in batches.
From: "Ben Mahler" <benjamin.mahler@gmail.com>
To: "Bill Farner" <wfarner@apache.org>, "Maxim Khutornenko" <maxim@apache.org>
Cc: "Ben Mahler" <benjamin.mahler@gmail.com>,
 "Aurora" <reviews@aurora.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 22:27:57 -0000
Message-ID: <20150504222757.8788.51246@reviews.apache.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Sender: "Ben Mahler" <noreply@reviews.apache.org>
References: <20150504215600.20176.48940@reviews.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150504215600.20176.48940@reviews.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Ben Mahler" <benjamin.mahler@gmail.com>

--===============5818922546945729685==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> On May 4, 2015, 9:56 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/UserTaskLauncher.java, lines 199-203
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/33689/diff/1/?file=947578#file947578line199>
> >
> >     This isn't necessary. You can use `.execute(...)` instead and rely on a single threaded executor to enforce sequential item processing.

You mean the "same thread" executor, yes? Single threaded executor is still asynchronous IIUC.

I was a bit hesitant to have the code assume a certain implementation of ExecutorService, seems brittle? If the implementation changes then the throughput can regress substantially.


- Ben


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/33689/#review82433
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 1, 2015, 10:55 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33689/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 1, 2015, 10:55 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Maxim Khutornenko and Bill Farner.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-1228
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1228
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Now the processing of status updates is done asynchronously with batching to insulate throughput from the expensive storage resource. Updates are placed into a queue and consumed by another thread. If many updates arrive while we're storing a batch of updates, these will be processed together in batch rather than individually.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/StatusUpdateBenchmark.java PRE-CREATION 
>   src/jmh/java/org/apache/aurora/benchmark/fakes/FakeDriver.java 45de15a57baf7a2f7d437b590935714e28777f35 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/SchedulerModule.java d3ac176e9402a33fd2074b0737313458120da9e2 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/UserTaskLauncher.java c54619f7cd617b48069363173dcf63b6254b4095 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/async/GcExecutorLauncher.java 4d589a33a2933b0cb6caf85abfae45c5e635c3ce 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/Driver.java c7e45a89ceaa2c310feb610091eec0b04187860e 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/MesosSchedulerImpl.java 9b8ab7c1027731f9d3f6cae77b85272ea63354d4 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/SchedulerDriverService.java da2d5df2e053e6e1b8fb08d6813dff9eac9777f8 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/UserTaskLauncherTest.java 32432322753799562d671db39c0d7fa308d962ff 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/async/GcExecutorLauncherTest.java 422d5a9a42310979752eb7282658316c2b772419 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/mesos/MesosSchedulerImplTest.java abdeee49858fc439c27911c4eb544bf8e8c931d4 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33689/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ran the benchmark to confirm that this improves status update throughput substantially:
> 
> Before: Around 100 updates per second for a 5ms storage latency. Much worse for higher latencies.
> After:  Around 4k-5k updates per second for a 5ms storage latency, down to 3k updates per second for 100ms storage latency.
> 
> Updated unit tests for the new invariants:
> 
> * TaskLaunchers are responsible for acknowledging updates.
> * UserTaskLauncher processes updates asynchronously.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>


--===============5818922546945729685==--