KEP-1714: Fair Sharing #1773
KEP-1714: Fair Sharing #1773
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue canceled.
|
|
/cc @KunWuLuan @tenzen-y |
|
@alculquicondor: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: KunWuLuan. Note that only kubernetes-sigs members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
cc @kerthcet |
Yea, I should review this KEP. |
keps/1714-fair-sharing/README.md
Outdated
| TeamE can submit as many workloads and consume as many resources as they can while | ||
| TeamW is not a work and doesn’t need resources. However, once they arrive, some of | ||
| the already submitted workloads from TeamE may be preempted(preferably the least | ||
| important) to ensure equal extra space (irregardless of their given quota) for both teams. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why here to ensure equal extra space, didn't understand the intension here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
space from the company-wide pool, as described in the first paragraph.
| flavor, that are above the nominal quota. The value for a resource is the ratio of T_r and the | ||
| total nominal quotas in the hierarchy of the parent of C. | ||
|
|
||
| The value for the CQ or cohort is the maximum among the values for each resource, divided by the weight, if defined. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"The value for the CQ or cohort" - is this the fair share value? This paragraph feels quite abstract, I think it would be helpful to back it up with a small example so that we can have some intuition.
keps/1714-fair-sharing/README.md
Outdated
| TeamE can submit as many workloads and consume as many resources as they can while | ||
| TeamW is not a work and doesn’t need resources. However, once they arrive, some of | ||
| the already submitted workloads from TeamE may be preempted(preferably the least | ||
| important) to ensure equal extra space (irregardless of their given quota) for both teams. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
space from the company-wide pool, as described in the first paragraph.
mwielgus
force-pushed
the
fs
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cad9a9b to
6c1efbf
Compare
| flavor, that are above the nominal quota. The value for a resource is the ratio of T_r and the | ||
| total nominal quotas in the hierarchy of the parent of C. | ||
|
|
||
| The value for the CQ or cohort is the maximum among the values for each resource, divided by the weight, if defined. |
|
|
||
| The value for the CQ or cohort is the maximum among the values for each resource, divided by the weight, if defined. | ||
|
|
||
| Weights will be added to ClusterQueueSpec and CohortSpec in the following optional struct: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When we set FairSharing configuration, what happens?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's mentioned in the previous section and detailed in the sections below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is my bad.
I wanted to say "When we set FairSharing configuration to ClusterQueue without Cohort, what happens?"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nothing. Fair sharing only applies above CQs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You meant that we will add any validation?
|
|
||
| Weights will be added to ClusterQueueSpec and CohortSpec in the following optional struct: | ||
|
|
||
| ```go |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I can remember, we have a plan to have DRF as another queueingStarategy like this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VQ0qxWA-jwgvLq_WYG46OkXWW00O6q7b1BsR_Uv-acs/edit?usp=sharing
So, did you compare the pros and cons of the following options?
- Exptend CohortSpec and ClusterQueueSpec (current your approach)
- Introduce a new queueing strategy, "DRF", and have a new CRD, "FairSharing".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DRF within a CQ wouldn't easily extrapolate to more complex hierarchies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That makes sense.
Recording this discussion as an Alternative approach might be worth it, right?
|
|
||
| Weights will be added to ClusterQueueSpec and CohortSpec in the following optional struct: | ||
|
|
||
| ```go |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DRF within a CQ wouldn't easily extrapolate to more complex hierarchies.
|
|
||
| The value for the CQ or cohort is the maximum among the values for each resource, divided by the weight, if defined. | ||
|
|
||
| Weights will be added to ClusterQueueSpec and CohortSpec in the following optional struct: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's mentioned in the previous section and detailed in the sections below
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 7e88dcc1f51499d039498371bab9716694e2c9f7
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alculquicondor, mwielgus The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/kind api-change
What this PR does / why we need it:
Defines how fair sharing of unused resources will work in Kueue.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Part of #1714
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?