mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mesos ReviewBot <revi...@mesos.apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 43686: Added a benchmark for allocation with labeled resources.
Date Thu, 18 Feb 2016 03:35:06 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#review119581
-----------------------------------------------------------



Patch looks great!

Reviews applied: [43684, 43685, 43686]

Passed command: export OS='ubuntu:14.04' CONFIGURATION='--verbose' COMPILER='gcc' ENVIRONMENT='GLOG_v=1
MESOS_VERBOSE=1'; ./support/docker_build.sh

- Mesos ReviewBot


On Feb. 18, 2016, 12:04 a.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 18, 2016, 12:04 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4691
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4691
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> For the particular workload exercised by the benchmark, this suggests that
> adding a 12-element label to a resource slows down allocation by about 5% on my
> local machine.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp 990f3723d52dfeaa19d5eb0603c0fc7eb2b362c7

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> FYI, results on my laptop:
> 
> _Original benchmark (unlabeled resources)_
> [ RUN      ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.DeclineOffers
> Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks
> round 0 allocate took 2.028175secs to make 200 offers
> round 1 allocate took 2.006791secs to make 200 offers
> round 2 allocate took 2.033723secs to make 200 offers
> round 3 allocate took 2.017508secs to make 200 offers
> round 4 allocate took 2.037235secs to make 200 offers
> round 5 allocate took 2.054095secs to make 200 offers
> round 6 allocate took 2.048884secs to make 200 offers
> round 7 allocate took 2.044252secs to make 200 offers
> round 8 allocate took 2.060256secs to make 200 offers
> round 9 allocate took 2.07121secs to make 200 offers
> round 10 allocate took 2.066261secs to make 200 offers
> round 11 allocate took 2.034805secs to make 200 offers
> round 12 allocate took 2.053705secs to make 200 offers
> round 13 allocate took 2.042106secs to make 200 offers
> round 14 allocate took 2.082704secs to make 200 offers
> 
> _New benchmark (two labeled resources with different labels)_
> [ RUN      ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.ResourceLabels
> Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks
> round 0 allocate took 2.128709secs to make 200 offers
> round 1 allocate took 2.188029secs to make 200 offers
> round 2 allocate took 2.145937secs to make 200 offers
> round 3 allocate took 2.171442secs to make 200 offers
> round 4 allocate took 2.153106secs to make 200 offers
> round 5 allocate took 2.151484secs to make 200 offers
> round 6 allocate took 2.136182secs to make 200 offers
> round 7 allocate took 2.152105secs to make 200 offers
> round 8 allocate took 2.187842secs to make 200 offers
> round 9 allocate took 2.13839secs to make 200 offers
> round 10 allocate took 2.237216secs to make 200 offers
> round 11 allocate took 2.164702secs to make 200 offers
> round 12 allocate took 2.143296secs to make 200 offers
> round 13 allocate took 2.198839secs to make 200 offers
> round 14 allocate took 2.179931secs to make 200 offers
> 
> For fun, I tried running the benchmark with the modified equality operator for `Labels`
that uses `unordered_multiset` to produce the correct results for labels that contain duplicates:
> 
> [ RUN      ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.ResourceLabels
> Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks
> round 0 allocate took 2.190051secs to make 200 offers
> round 1 allocate took 2.169332secs to make 200 offers
> round 2 allocate took 2.156235secs to make 200 offers
> round 3 allocate took 2.15506secs to make 200 offers
> round 4 allocate took 2.133953secs to make 200 offers
> round 5 allocate took 2.18325secs to make 200 offers
> round 6 allocate took 2.164478secs to make 200 offers
> round 7 allocate took 2.192077secs to make 200 offers
> round 8 allocate took 2.14688secs to make 200 offers
> round 9 allocate took 2.172333secs to make 200 offers
> round 10 allocate took 2.199906secs to make 200 offers
> round 11 allocate took 2.16384secs to make 200 offers
> round 12 allocate took 2.200181secs to make 200 offers
> round 13 allocate took 2.138463secs to make 200 offers
> round 14 allocate took 2.184699secs to make 200 offers
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>


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