-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 188
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
don't include cleaning tasks in instance count #1505
Conversation
c = new Counter(); | ||
map.put(key, c); | ||
} | ||
Counter c = map.computeIfAbsent(key, k -> new Counter()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we are not using the key in order to determine the value here, should use putIfAbsent
instead of computeIfAbsent
. Same for the one below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 good find, didn't realize that one
@@ -133,6 +134,10 @@ public void save(SingularityHostState hostState) throws InterruptedException { | |||
numTasks.incr(pendingTaskId.getRequestId()); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
for (SingularityTaskId cleaningTaskId : taskManager.getCleanupTaskIds()) { | |||
numTasks.decr(cleaningTaskId.getRequestId()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we still want to include cleaning when checking for under provisioned, this will exclude it for both under and over? Trying to make sure we avoid any false alerts if possible
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe so. I'm imagining a request that should have 3 instances, but has 2 running and 1 cleaning. Since we're still counting pending tasks, if one task is pending, then the count is correct, otherwise, it's under provisioned. I think counting cleaning tasks may actually have made us miss potential under provisioned requests in the past
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 cool, let's give this a go in staging/qa then
👍 lets get this into stable |
Just verifying the merge conflicts got resolved correctly and will merge this one too 👍 |
Tasks that are cleaning should not be part of the instance count when checking for over provisioned requests
@ssalinas