aurora-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 46803: AURORA-1458: Add tier into the UI "show config" summary.
Date Mon, 23 May 2016 16:02:38 GMT


> On April 29, 2016, 1:20 a.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> > src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/controllers.js, line 139
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/diff/1/?file=1365181#file1365181line139>
> >
> >     I am not too keen on having a column for an optional field that will most likely
read 'default' for all jobs. Perhaps postpone its introduction until TaskConfig.tier is required?
> 
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>     I thought that leaving it blank would raise more questions for most users who did
not use tiers at all (basically the same point that Joshua raised above).
>     
>     I'll leave it blank and we can address that if the need arises.
> 
> Joshua Cohen wrote:
>     I'd be ok with just not shipping this change until TaskConfig.tier is required and
users are actually aware of it.
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
>     I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field in user configurations?
> 
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>     > I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field in user
configurations?
>     
>     That is correct! :)
>     
>     To put this change in perspective, as was previously agreed upon:
>     1. Aurora users should *never* be required to specify a tier if the default tier
suffices for their use. This behavior is similar to how the production flag is defaulted to
false.
>     2. The definition of a default tier is managed by the cluster operator since the
tier definition file now requires explicitly selecting a "default" tier in the tier configuration
file.
>     
>     Given the above, the thought was that making the tier visible in the UI would help
socialize the tier concept as well as provide the insight that a 'default' tier was in use
even when the job configuration did not explicitly specify a tier.
>     
>     There's 2 other changes I intend to make shortly that will help clarify this from
the users' perspective:
>     1. AURORA-1656 "Document tier concept" (filed by serb): I intend to add documentation
regarding how the user could get visibility into the tier used for their active jobs. I figured
having the UI in place would make that easier.
>     2. AURORA-1686 "Provide visibility into available tiers" (filed moments ago, by me):
This will allow hyperlinking the displayed tier to the tier configuration page so that users
get better informed about the implication of their tier selection.
>     
>     Let me know if this sounds like a reasonable approach to proceed with.
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     > I thought we had concluded that tier would not become a required field in user
configurations?
>     
>     Right, this is my understanding as well. By 'required' I meant the non-empty thrift
value, not user configuration.
>     
>     I am still under opinion we should not over-advertise the Tier concept until we set
the default tier in the client (and/or populate it in the scheduler). When we do that, I'd
rather see the real assigned tier (e.g. 'preemtible') instead of an anonymous 'default' one.
I think having a job config Tier entry should be enough of introduction into the Tier concept
at this point without spooking our users by a new Tier column filled with a meaningless 'default'
or otherwise completely empty.
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
>     > By 'required' I meant the non-empty thrift value, not user configuration.
>     
>     Slight tangent, but you should consider leaving the thrift value blank as well. 
Otherwise, it seems like it would be difficult for an operator to change the default and have
it apply to previously-created jobs.
> 
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>     Ah, we were just discussing this very aspect here, internally. I think at this point,
the discussion/recommendation would be best captured in the gdoc for this feature. For now
I will:
>     1. Park this review.
>     2. Update the gdoc for tier management and send out a notification on the dev list.
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
>     The discussion seems to have stalled. How do we want to proceed?

I have updated the dev thread and suggest we postpone this change until the proposed changes
are implemented: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1erszT-HsWf1zCIfhbqHlsotHxWUvDyI2xUwNQQQxLgs/edit#


- Maxim


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/#review131028
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 29, 2016, 2:54 a.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 29, 2016, 2:54 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Maxim Khutornenko.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> AURORA-1458: Add tier into the UI "show config" summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/configSummary.html 1af7511de0e8a143c8ea88377aad756b44e3ac30

>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/controllers.js 84417ebeadfae57d55b9f12e8a985825bd620fc8

>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/js/services.js d9ce52065f9573b0aa68a95da7da7c50fb14310a

>   src/main/resources/scheduler/assets/schedulingDetail.html eb88c1e6dec7a26643e8b13ffcf8e90df70a67f7

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ensured the changes appear in the UI after launching the scheduler using vagrant.
> 
> 
> File Attachments
> ----------------
> 
> Jobs by Role
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/04/29/6e58d26d-e77c-49fe-85e0-ee1acae3efe0__Jobs_by_Role.png
> Per Job Config Summary
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/04/29/8a666fe7-9a35-427f-b1ee-f41e5413059d__Per_Job_Config_Summary.png
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Amol Deshmukh
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message