mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Rukletsov <ruklet...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 68131: Added MasterPooledStateQuery_BENCHMARK_Test.
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2018 10:10:07 GMT


> On Aug. 8, 2018, 1:19 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > Just a high level comment, it's unfortunate that this test depends so much on timing
w.r.t. to the 200ms polling interval. For example, if we actually serve the first request
in less than 200ms then we wouldn't be measuring the benefits of batching.
> > 
> > An idea for how to fix this:
> > 
> > * Issue batches, e.g. N requests at once, when they all finish, another N requests,
only need to repeat a few times. This means that the benchmark will always show how batching
can help high load, and we're not assuming requests take longer than e.g. 200ms to get processed
on the master. We don't need an interval here because we can just proceed with the next poll
as soon as everything finished from the first one.

I think you suggestion is biased towards the batching approach: if we send request in batches
then obviously processing them together is the best strategy. However, if no two '/state'
requests sit in the master mailbox at any time, then batching is strictly worse. The reason
why we decided to do batching is because:
1. The negative effect of batching in the second scenario is much smaller than the positive
effect in the first scenario. The second scenario implies that the master mailbox is relatively
empty hence an extra trip is negligible.
2. The main goal is to isolate the master workload from state-related computations and **not**
speed up '/state' responses. Hence the important metric here is '/flags' response time.

I would like to keep the test not opinionated and have it mimic the request rate we saw in
real world clusters.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/68131/#review206962
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:30 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/68131/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 6, 2018, 10:30 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benno Evers and Benjamin Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8975
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8975
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/master_benchmarks.cpp b6d6dc7c1752491e2da854018966374b624d6682 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/68131/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> See https://reviews.apache.org/r/68132/
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>


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