You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apex.apache.org by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> on 2016/02/01 23:12:13 UTC
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Hi folks,
Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in apex as per
discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed something.
* For configuration:*
- We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules. For the
first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among operators within
single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to support
across applications.
- Each rule will consist of 4 components:
<List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY, STRICT/RELAXED policy,
CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2 operators
that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for setting it
through application. So, affinity rules can cover container affinity as
well.
We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or anti-affinity,
since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
The list of operators can also be specified by regex
*For Implementation: *
- I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by HortonWorks
for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the approach of
node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
- However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for CDH distro,
as node specific requests may not work well. As:
-> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not honored in
CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no containers
are allocated.
-> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and Capacity
Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when setting up CDH
5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these things in
mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on this
effort! :)
Thanks!
Isha
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to operators
> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general this should
> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using expressions. For
> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and {!app2.op1}".
>
>
> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the same host.
>> To
>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied, through a
>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that operators designer
>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the same hack to
>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with anti-affinity rule
>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look like a good
>>> option :).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>
>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly connected by
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required functionality.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>
>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X may be deployed
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container as X, so X
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to any specific
>>>>>>> host.
>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same JVM will be
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM leads to
>>>>>>> inter
>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK for an
>>>>>>> operator
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value would be an
>>>>>>>> alias
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same could be
>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity for 2
>>>>>>>> operators.
>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to partitions of the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> operator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that operator X writes
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from it. Z is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be necessary to let
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to the same JVM)
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads from the same
>>>>>>>>> JVM
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on NUMA boxes,
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> NUMA
>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Isha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special case of
>>>>>>>>>> generic
>>>>>>>>>> rules
>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would be applicable
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to express this
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for configuring
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
>>>>>>>>>>> Well
>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is: affinity of
>>>>>>>>>>> operators
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is only
>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes sense to have it
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for REQUIRED or
>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED or
>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> "how
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to"
>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of operators.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in a way,
>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was straight
>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up, one might
>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity & anti-affinity)
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted configuration which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity rules. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how both can be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY ENTITIES
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED O1, O2
>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED O3, O4
>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1, O4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
>>>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is another way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration pattern, we
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and give something
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might quickly get
>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to add some new
>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at DAG.validate
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> early
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having single set
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on Locality for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as Sandeep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of contradicting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by requesting node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected). But should
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well along with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from dt-site.xml.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for complex objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object properties through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy constraints:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for allocating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained. Likewise, in case of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the application in ACCEPTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For relaxed policy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule. Please note
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the affinity as well
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on containers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity (locality) in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for *any* two
>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and see how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type cast it as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators must not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one is a much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules, there must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before requesting YARN for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is no point
>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be "relaxed" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict rules may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha Thombare <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single set of affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity Rules" than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container allocation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring anti-affinity, as per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure locality and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for locality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as above, would it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both anti-affinity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is configured in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as "affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to allocate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also configured.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity (similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring locality rules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call it "affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across application is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in iteration 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that Java object
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from dt-site.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON representation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON representation.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute syntax should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if it works :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the containers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup, especially for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based requests if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I checked that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster. Yarn does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to check the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity scheduler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue. Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression sounds good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity across
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations. For example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the CDH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor variation of it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other applications and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support anti-cluster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for Anti-affinity in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an operator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 = dag.addOperator("O1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 = dag.addOperator("O2",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2", "O3")));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Yes that is correct.
If affinity rule is specified for 2 stream connected operators, that is
equivalent to stream locality.
In dag validation phase, we will treat whichever is lower locality bound as
the final stream locality. E.g. if Stream Locality is NODE_LOCAL and
affinity rule between the same 2 operators is set to be CONTAINER_LOCAL.
We'll set locality of that stream to be CONTAINER_LOCAL.
Thanks,
Isha
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set that can
> consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original intention
> or not.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same thing?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator attribute.
> >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity can be
> >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream locality,
> it
> >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> independently.
> >>
> >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local // This
> >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to this stream
> >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same node
> >>
> >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only relate
> >> to
> >> connected operators.
> >>
> >> Thks
> >> Amol
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Pramod,
> >> > >
> >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators
> list
> >> for
> >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both
> >> these
> >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in
> >> validation
> >> > > phase.
> >> > >
> >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or
> affinity
> >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to not
> >> > include
> >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation
> as
> >> is.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > Isha
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Isha,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between
> >> more
> >> > > than
> >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as
> multiple
> >> > > rules
> >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical
> >> > > operators?
> >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the
> affinity
> >> > rule
> >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of
> MxN
> >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other
> >> cases
> >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all
> >> the
> >> > > > important to have it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling
> affinity
> >> > > rules
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > Apex:
> >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for
> specifying
> >> > > > affinity
> >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers
> >> should
> >> > be
> >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag
> >> > context.
> >> > > > For
> >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs.
> >> We
> >> > can
> >> > > > add
> >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators
> rand
> >> > and
> >> > > > > console:
> >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> >> > "rand",
> >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand
> operator
> >> > with
> >> > > > all
> >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> >> OperatorPair(
> >> > > > "rand",
> >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru
> >> operator,
> >> > > give
> >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> >> OperatorPair(
> >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules
> here:
> >> > > > >
> >> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node
> >> > > specific
> >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> >> > > To
> >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to
> >> > > blacklist
> >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be
> >> > > issued.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of
> >> > partitioned
> >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> >> anti-affinity
> >> > > > rules?
> >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
> >> independent
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest
> >> what
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Isha
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules
> in
> >> > apex
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I
> missed
> >> > > > > something.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity
> rules.
> >> > For
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among
> >> operators
> >> > > > > within
> >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to
> >> > > support
> >> > > > > > across applications.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> >> STRICT/RELAXED
> >> > > > > policy,
> >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2
> >> > > > operators
> >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API
> for
> >> > > setting
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container
> >> > affinity
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > > well.
> >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected
> operators.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
> >> > > > > HortonWorks
> >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the
> >> > approach
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for
> >> CDH
> >> > > > > distro,
> >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are
> not
> >> > > honored
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but
> no
> >> > > > > containers
> >> > > > > > are allocated.
> >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and
> >> Capacity
> >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when
> >> setting
> >> > > up
> >> > > > > CDH
> >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with
> these
> >> > > things
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate
> on
> >> > this
> >> > > > > > effort! :)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > > > Isha
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to
> >> > operators
> >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In
> general
> >> > this
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
> >> > expressions.
> >> > > > For
> >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
> >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > > host.
> >> > > > > >>> To
> >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied,
> >> > > through
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that
> >> operators
> >> > > > > >>>> designer
> >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > hack
> >> > > > > >>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> >> > > anti-affinity
> >> > > > > rule
> >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not
> look
> >> > like
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > good
> >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly
> >> > > > connected
> >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X
> >> may be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container
> >> as X,
> >> > > so
> >> > > > X
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to
> >> any
> >> > > > > specific
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the
> same
> >> > JVM
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM
> >> > leads
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> LOCALITY_RACK
> >> for
> >> > > an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value
> >> would
> >> > be
> >> > > > an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The
> same
> >> > > could
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing
> affinity
> >> > for
> >> > > 2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to
> >> partitions
> >> > of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that
> >> > operator X
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads
> from
> >> > it.
> >> > > Z
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be
> >> necessary
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > let
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to
> >> the
> >> > > same
> >> > > > > JVM)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads
> >> from
> >> > the
> >> > > > > same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local
> on
> >> > NUMA
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special
> >> case
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would
> >> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way
> to
> >> > > express
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
> >> > > > > configuring
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is:
> >> affinity of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is
> >> only
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes
> >> sense to
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for
> >> > > REQUIRED
> >> > > > or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> STRICT/RELAXED
> >> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar
> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly
> >> > talking
> >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity
> of
> >> > > > > operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also,
> in
> >> a
> >> > > way,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was
> >> > straight
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes
> up,
> >> > one
> >> > > > > might
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> >> > > configuration
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity
> >> rules.
> >> > I
> >> > > > > think
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how
> >> both
> >> > > can
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> >> ENTITIES
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED
> >> O1, O2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED
> >> O3, O4
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED
> O1,
> >> O4
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2,
> O4
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is
> >> another
> >> > way
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration
> >> > > pattern,
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for
> distributed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and
> >> give
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept
> might
> >> > > > quickly
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need
> to
> >> add
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated
> at
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan
> >> > might
> >> > > > be a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of
> having
> >> > > single
> >> > > > > set
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on
> >> > Locality
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as
> >> Sandeep
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> >> > contradicting
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among
> non
> >> > > stream
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by
> >> requesting
> >> > > node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as
> expected).
> >> > But
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well
> >> along
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
> >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for
> >> complex
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object
> >> > properties
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
> >> > > constraints:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for
> >> > allocating
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained.
> >> Likewise, in
> >> > > > case
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
> >> application in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For
> >> relaxed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity
> rule.
> >> > > Please
> >> > > > > note
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting
> rules.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the
> >> > affinity
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
> >> containers.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity
> >> > (locality)
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for
> >> *any*
> >> > two
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and
> >> see
> >> > > how
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot
> type
> >> > cast
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two
> operators
> >> > must
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one
> >> is a
> >> > > > much
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules,
> >> > there
> >> > > > must
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before
> >> requesting
> >> > > YARN
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is
> >> no
> >> > > point
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is
> >> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be
> >> > > > "relaxed"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict
> >> > rules
> >> > > > may
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the
> >> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha
> >> Thombare <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single
> >> set of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep
> >> Deshmukh <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> >> > thread/container
> >> > > > > local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> >> affect?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in
> this
> >> > > case.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it
> "Affinity
> >> > > Rules"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our
> container
> >> > > > > allocation
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated
> together.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay
> >> Kolhatkar
> >> > <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> >> > anti-affinity,
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > per
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure
> >> > > locality
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for
> >> locality.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> >> > > thread/container
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> >> affect?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as
> >> above,
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> >> > > anti-affinity
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is
> >> > > > configured
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as
> >> > > > "affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to
> >> > allocate
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is
> also
> >> > > > > configured.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both
> affinity
> >> > > > (similar
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring
> >> > locality
> >> > > > > rules
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call
> >> it
> >> > > > > "affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra
> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
> >> application
> >> > is
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in
> >> > > iteration
> >> > > > > 1.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think
> that
> >> > Java
> >> > > > > object
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure
> from
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> >> > representation
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some
> >> special
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> >> > > representation.)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute
> >> > syntax
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> compatibility
> >> > > issues
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if
> >> it
> >> > > works
> >> > > > > :-)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the
> >> containers
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup,
> >> especially
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha
> >> Arkatkar <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based
> >> requests
> >> > if
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether?
> I
> >> > > checked
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster.
> >> Yarn
> >> > > does
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the
> container
> >> > > > request.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to
> >> check
> >> > the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in
> capacity
> >> > > > scheduler
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent
> issue.
> >> > > Please
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular
> expression
> >> > > sounds
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names
> internally
> >> > based
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for
> >> attribute
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> anti-affinity
> >> > > across
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas
> >> Weise <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas
> Weise
> >> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken
> away
> >> > from
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to
> >> claim
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at
> >> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations.
> >> For
> >> > > > > example,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to
> work
> >> > with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently
> added
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on
> the
> >> > CDH
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod
> >> Immaneni <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be
> >> > available
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas
> >> Weise <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor
> >> variation
> >> > of
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number
> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource
> preemption
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
> >> applications
> >> > and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
> >> > anti-cluster
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha
> >> > > Arkatkar
> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> >> > Anti-affinity
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> anti-affinity
> >> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the
> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use
> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
> >> anti-affinity
> >> > yet
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for
> physical
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an
> >> > > > attribute
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an
> >> operator
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> >> > > "O3")));
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not
> >> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is
> >> part
> >> > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
RE: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Isha <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Would be glad to work on the documentation part!
Thanks,
Isha
-----Original Message-----
From: "Thomas Weise" <th...@datatorrent.com>
Sent: ‎4/‎8/‎2016 9:06 PM
To: "dev@apex.incubator.apache.org" <de...@apex.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Generic affinity support in Apex is now official! Thanks Isha for patiently
working through a lot of feedback, experimenting with all the different
scenarios and even implementing the blacklist based workaround for the CDH
scheduler issue.
It would be nice to add to the documentation also :-)
I checked and the appropriate place seems to be somewhere around:
http://apex.incubator.apache.org/docs/apex/application_development/#streams
Isha, it would be great if you can take this up and also include the JSON
configuration example.
Thanks!
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Hi Chinmay,
>
> Please find my replies inline..
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Isha,
> >
> > Couple of points:
> > 1. Do the first curly brackets required? They seem to add another level
> of
> > hierarchy.
> >
> [ISHA] Yes, for serialization to and from Json, wrapped the list of
> rules in a wrapper class.
>
> 2. operatorRegex, operators, operatorList all seem to mention list list of
> > operators. Do you think we can come up with a simpler rather than
> providing
> > more options?
> >
> [ISHA] Regex and list are just easier ways to specify operators
> affinities instead of pairs. Regex can match any Java regex. I am not too
> good with regex, so you saw simple example there :)
>
> 3. Having JSON innside xml seems a little convoluted to me. I wonder if
> > there is a better way to set dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET. Maybe have t as
> > XML itself?
> >
> [ISHA] I tried XML string codec first too. But we use Hadoop's
> Configuration object for properties.xml. And it expects property value to
> be a string. So we cannot specify value as XML. Have opened a Jira for
> this, but it is actually in Hadoop's code, so we can't have XML string
> values unless we override Configuration.
>
> 4. For operatorRegex which regex language do we support? Is it Java regex
> > OR perl/bash based one?
> > [ISHA] It is java regex. Simply does a pattern match on all operators in
> > dag. It expects at least 2 matches to be found. Otherwise logs warning
> and
> > does not consider the affinity rule valid.
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chinmay.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > To support setting affinity rules from properties.xml, I added json
> > > string codec to read the value. I had to wrap the list of rules in an
> > > object call AffinityRuleSet to support easy serialization.
> > >
> > > Here is an example for setting through property:
> > >
> > > <property>
> > > <name>dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET</name>
> > > <value>
> > > {
> > > "affinityRules": [
> > > {
> > > "operatorRegex": "rand|console",
> > > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > > "type": "AFFINITY",
> > > "relaxLocality": false
> > > },
> > > {
> > > "operators": {
> > > "first": "rand",
> > > "second": "passThru"
> > > },
> > > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > > "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> > > "relaxLocality": false
> > > },
> > > {
> > > "operatorsList": [
> > > "passThru",
> > > "passThru"
> > > ],
> > > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > > "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> > > "relaxLocality": false
> > > }
> > > ]
> > > }
> > > </value>
> > > </property>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Isha
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <chinmay@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Isha,
> > > >
> > > > 2 ways looks fine.
> > > >
> > > > Just one point, how would user set affinity rules using DAG content
> > > > attribute from properties.xml file?
> > > > Can you please provide some example for this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chinmay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Isha Arkatkar <isha@datatorrent.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the input Chinmay.
> > > > >
> > > > > The last parameter true/false is for relaxing the constraint. If
> > true,
> > > > the
> > > > > affinity rule would be relaxed if constraint cannot be satisfied.
> And
> > > if
> > > > > false, application will keep requesting and waiting to launch
> > > containers
> > > > > till all rules are satisfied.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the dag.setAffinity APIs. I can add those couple APIs in
> > > > > LogicalPlan as a wrapper that internally can set the Dag
> Attributes.
> > > > > Probably yes, that would be easier to use, to set affinity directly
> > on
> > > > dag
> > > > > object.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then there would 2 ways to set affinity rules:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Through DAG context attribute (Either through code or through
> > > > > properties.xml)
> > > > > 2. By calling setAffinity on dag.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Isha
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > > chinmay@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface
> for
> > > > > > specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not
> > > > confusing
> > > > > > users with two different configurations at the same time make a
> > > > > > locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in
> the
> > > word
> > > > > at
> > > > > > the moment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after
> > some
> > > > > time
> > > > > > based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream
> > > > Locality
> > > > > > API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
> > > > > > 1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
> > > > > > 2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule>
> and
> > > > then
> > > > > > setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an
> API
> > in
> > > > > > LogicalPlan like following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>,
> > > false/true)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) //
> Not
> > > sure
> > > > > > what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is
> > to
> > > > > remove
> > > > > > locality for anti-affinity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Chinmay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators
> > that
> > > > are
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > of the stream.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <
> > amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but
> > not
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators
> > that
> > > > > > connect
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > stream,
> > > > > > > > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thks,
> > > > > > > > Amol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a
> super-set
> > > > that
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the
> > > original
> > > > > > > > intention
> > > > > > > > > or not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the
> same
> > > > > thing?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <
> > > > > amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is
> > operator
> > > > > > > attribute.
> > > > > > > > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator
> > > > affinity
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers
> > stream
> > > > > > > locality,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> may be better to let user say the two following
> statements
> > > > > > > > > independently.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be
> > ..._local
> > > //
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > >> statement is independent of future additions of
> operators
> > to
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > stream
> > > > > > > > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream
> > localities
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > relate
> > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> connected operators.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thks
> > > > > > > > > >> Amol
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in
> > favor
> > > of
> > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to
> specify
> > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will
> > > > > translate
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > >> these
> > > > > > > > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators
> > > helps
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> validation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting
> > > locality
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably
> > > > alright
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > include
> > > > > > > > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> is.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually)
> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > than
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on
> > specifying
> > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more
> > > than 2
> > > > > > > logical
> > > > > > > > > >> > > operators?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > rule
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the
> > > common
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > MxN
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream
> > > operator.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > >> cases
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not
> > > sure
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for
> > > > > handling
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the
> APIs
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > specifying
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on
> > how
> > > > > > > unifiers
> > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More
> > > > details
> > > > > > > > follow:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an
> > > attribute
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > Dag
> > > > > > > > > >> > context.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for
> > > > > operator
> > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > >> We
> > > > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > add
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not
> > connected
> > > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > > rand
> > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > console:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> > > > > > > OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > > >> > "rand",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all
> partitions
> > of
> > > > > rand
> > > > > > > > > operator
> > > > > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new
> AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of
> > > > > passThru
> > > > > > > > > >> operator,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > give
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new
> AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL,
> > > false));
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES,
> > > rules);
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these
> > > affinity
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules
> > heavily
> > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > >> > > specific
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > > > > > > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > To
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added
> an
> > > > > > override
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > blacklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container
> > > > request
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > issued.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up:
> > In
> > > > case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > partitioned
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow
> > affinity
> > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > rules?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have
> > kept
> > > > them
> > > > > > > > > >> independent
> > > > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification
> > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for
> > > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > apex
> > > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please
> > > suggest
> > > > > if I
> > > > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level
> > > > > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > For
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for
> > > (anti-)affinity
> > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > within
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the
> > next
> > > > > > > iteration
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>,
> > AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > > > > > > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container
> > > locality
> > > > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did
> not
> > > find
[The entire original message is not included.]
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@datatorrent.com>.
Generic affinity support in Apex is now official! Thanks Isha for patiently
working through a lot of feedback, experimenting with all the different
scenarios and even implementing the blacklist based workaround for the CDH
scheduler issue.
It would be nice to add to the documentation also :-)
I checked and the appropriate place seems to be somewhere around:
http://apex.incubator.apache.org/docs/apex/application_development/#streams
Isha, it would be great if you can take this up and also include the JSON
configuration example.
Thanks!
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Hi Chinmay,
>
> Please find my replies inline..
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Isha,
> >
> > Couple of points:
> > 1. Do the first curly brackets required? They seem to add another level
> of
> > hierarchy.
> >
> [ISHA] Yes, for serialization to and from Json, wrapped the list of
> rules in a wrapper class.
>
> 2. operatorRegex, operators, operatorList all seem to mention list list of
> > operators. Do you think we can come up with a simpler rather than
> providing
> > more options?
> >
> [ISHA] Regex and list are just easier ways to specify operators
> affinities instead of pairs. Regex can match any Java regex. I am not too
> good with regex, so you saw simple example there :)
>
> 3. Having JSON innside xml seems a little convoluted to me. I wonder if
> > there is a better way to set dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET. Maybe have t as
> > XML itself?
> >
> [ISHA] I tried XML string codec first too. But we use Hadoop's
> Configuration object for properties.xml. And it expects property value to
> be a string. So we cannot specify value as XML. Have opened a Jira for
> this, but it is actually in Hadoop's code, so we can't have XML string
> values unless we override Configuration.
>
> 4. For operatorRegex which regex language do we support? Is it Java regex
> > OR perl/bash based one?
> > [ISHA] It is java regex. Simply does a pattern match on all operators in
> > dag. It expects at least 2 matches to be found. Otherwise logs warning
> and
> > does not consider the affinity rule valid.
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chinmay.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > To support setting affinity rules from properties.xml, I added json
> > > string codec to read the value. I had to wrap the list of rules in an
> > > object call AffinityRuleSet to support easy serialization.
> > >
> > > Here is an example for setting through property:
> > >
> > > <property>
> > > <name>dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET</name>
> > > <value>
> > > {
> > > "affinityRules": [
> > > {
> > > "operatorRegex": "rand|console",
> > > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > > "type": "AFFINITY",
> > > "relaxLocality": false
> > > },
> > > {
> > > "operators": {
> > > "first": "rand",
> > > "second": "passThru"
> > > },
> > > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > > "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> > > "relaxLocality": false
> > > },
> > > {
> > > "operatorsList": [
> > > "passThru",
> > > "passThru"
> > > ],
> > > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > > "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> > > "relaxLocality": false
> > > }
> > > ]
> > > }
> > > </value>
> > > </property>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Isha
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <chinmay@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Isha,
> > > >
> > > > 2 ways looks fine.
> > > >
> > > > Just one point, how would user set affinity rules using DAG content
> > > > attribute from properties.xml file?
> > > > Can you please provide some example for this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chinmay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Isha Arkatkar <isha@datatorrent.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the input Chinmay.
> > > > >
> > > > > The last parameter true/false is for relaxing the constraint. If
> > true,
> > > > the
> > > > > affinity rule would be relaxed if constraint cannot be satisfied.
> And
> > > if
> > > > > false, application will keep requesting and waiting to launch
> > > containers
> > > > > till all rules are satisfied.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the dag.setAffinity APIs. I can add those couple APIs in
> > > > > LogicalPlan as a wrapper that internally can set the Dag
> Attributes.
> > > > > Probably yes, that would be easier to use, to set affinity directly
> > on
> > > > dag
> > > > > object.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then there would 2 ways to set affinity rules:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Through DAG context attribute (Either through code or through
> > > > > properties.xml)
> > > > > 2. By calling setAffinity on dag.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Isha
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > > chinmay@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface
> for
> > > > > > specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not
> > > > confusing
> > > > > > users with two different configurations at the same time make a
> > > > > > locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in
> the
> > > word
> > > > > at
> > > > > > the moment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after
> > some
> > > > > time
> > > > > > based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream
> > > > Locality
> > > > > > API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
> > > > > > 1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
> > > > > > 2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule>
> and
> > > > then
> > > > > > setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an
> API
> > in
> > > > > > LogicalPlan like following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>,
> > > false/true)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) //
> Not
> > > sure
> > > > > > what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is
> > to
> > > > > remove
> > > > > > locality for anti-affinity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Chinmay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators
> > that
> > > > are
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > of the stream.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <
> > amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but
> > not
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators
> > that
> > > > > > connect
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > stream,
> > > > > > > > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thks,
> > > > > > > > Amol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a
> super-set
> > > > that
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the
> > > original
> > > > > > > > intention
> > > > > > > > > or not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the
> same
> > > > > thing?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <
> > > > > amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is
> > operator
> > > > > > > attribute.
> > > > > > > > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator
> > > > affinity
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers
> > stream
> > > > > > > locality,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> may be better to let user say the two following
> statements
> > > > > > > > > independently.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be
> > ..._local
> > > //
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > >> statement is independent of future additions of
> operators
> > to
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > stream
> > > > > > > > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream
> > localities
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > relate
> > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> connected operators.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thks
> > > > > > > > > >> Amol
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in
> > favor
> > > of
> > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to
> specify
> > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will
> > > > > translate
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > >> these
> > > > > > > > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators
> > > helps
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> validation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting
> > > locality
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably
> > > > alright
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > include
> > > > > > > > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> is.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually)
> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > than
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on
> > specifying
> > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more
> > > than 2
> > > > > > > logical
> > > > > > > > > >> > > operators?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > rule
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the
> > > common
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > MxN
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream
> > > operator.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > >> cases
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not
> > > sure
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for
> > > > > handling
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the
> APIs
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > specifying
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on
> > how
> > > > > > > unifiers
> > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More
> > > > details
> > > > > > > > follow:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an
> > > attribute
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > Dag
> > > > > > > > > >> > context.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for
> > > > > operator
> > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > >> We
> > > > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > add
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not
> > connected
> > > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > > rand
> > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > console:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> > > > > > > OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > > >> > "rand",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all
> partitions
> > of
> > > > > rand
> > > > > > > > > operator
> > > > > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new
> AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of
> > > > > passThru
> > > > > > > > > >> operator,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > give
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new
> AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL,
> > > false));
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES,
> > > rules);
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these
> > > affinity
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules
> > heavily
> > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > > >> > > specific
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > > > > > > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > To
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added
> an
> > > > > > override
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > blacklist
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container
> > > > request
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > issued.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up:
> > In
> > > > case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > partitioned
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow
> > affinity
> > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > rules?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have
> > kept
> > > > them
> > > > > > > > > >> independent
> > > > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification
> > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for
> > > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > apex
> > > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please
> > > suggest
> > > > > if I
> > > > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level
> > > > > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > For
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for
> > > (anti-)affinity
> > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > within
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the
> > next
> > > > > > > iteration
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>,
> > AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > > > > > > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container
> > > locality
> > > > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did
> not
> > > find
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > setting
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can
> > cover
> > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app
> level
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to
> > > > unconnected
> > > > > > > > > operators.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified
> by
> > > > regex
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific
> requests
> > > are
> > > > > > > honored
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we
> can
> > > go
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > approach
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on
> > blacklist
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> CDH
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > distro,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well.
> As:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific
> > > > > requests
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > honored
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending
> requests
> > > to
> > > > > > Yarn,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > containers
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same
> with
> > > > Fair
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> Capacity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some
> configuration
> > > > issues
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >> setting
> > > > > > > > > >> > > up
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > CDH
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity
> > > rules
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > >> > > things
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like
> to
> > > > > > > collaborate
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host
> > > name,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other
> > > applications).
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti
> > affinity
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > >> > expressions.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or
> > > > app1.op2}
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both
> > > > > operators
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > host.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> To
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > applied,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > through
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov
> <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra
> > > ports
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box.
> > We
> > > > may
> > > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > hack
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two
> > > operators
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rule
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but
> > it
> > > > does
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > > >> > like
> > > > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a
> > > stream.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad
> Rozov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > connected
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad
> > Rozov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL
> > > provides
> > > > > > > > required
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same
> > > > > > > container/JVM. X
> > > > > > > > > >> may be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the
> > > same
> > > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > > >> as X,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > so
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > X
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has
> > affinity
> > > to
> > > > > X,
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes,
> reading
> > > > > inside
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > JVM
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to
> any
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > host/JVM
> > > > > > > > > >> > leads
> > > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST
> > and
> > > > > > > > > LOCALITY_RACK
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are
> > describing.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for
> > > > > allocation.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > could
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different
> > > > values.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of
> > > > > expressing
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > 2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend
> > > this
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> partitions
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad
> > > Rozov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but
> > > > suppose
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > operator X
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and
> > > operator
> > > > Z
> > > > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > it.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Z
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such
> cases
> > it
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> necessary
> > > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container
> affinity
> > > > > > (deploying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > JVM)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be
> > cached
> > > > and
> > > > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied
> to
> > > > thread
> > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > NUMA
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not
> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on
> > stream
> > > > is a
> > > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > > >> case
> > > > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL,
> > > > > CONTAINER_LOCAL
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by
> > > stream.
> > > > > But,
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > express
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for
> > affinity.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha
> > > > Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common
> > set
> > > of
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to
> > > point
> > > > > is:
> > > > > > > > > >> affinity of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container
> locality.
> > > > Since
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream.
> > So,
> > > it
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > >> sense to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common
> configuration.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should
> > > only
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the
> terminologies
> > > > > > > > > STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM,
> > > Chinmay
> > > > > > > > Kolhatkar
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity
> > rule, I
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > > > >> > talking
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of
> > > > > implementation.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way
> > suggesting
> > > an
> > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > operators.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on
> stream,
> > > > we're
> > > > > > > also,
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > way,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there
> > and
> > > > > hence
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > >> > straight
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > up,
> > > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> > > > > > > > anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both
> > > > > > > (locality/affinity &
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more
> commonly
> > > > > adopted
> > > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere
> > Hypervisor's
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does
> > both.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick
> > > > > suggestion
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > > > > > > > > >> ENTITIES
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD
> > > > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > > > >> O1, O2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be
> > thread
> > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE
> > > > > PREFERRED
> > > > > > > > > >> O3, O4
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node
> local
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE
> > > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > > > O1,
> > > > > > > > > >> O4
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK
> > > > PREFERRED
> > > > > > > > O2,
> > > > > > > > > O4
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same
> > > rack.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for
> > > > threads
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > > > > >> > way
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly
> adopted
> > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > >> > > pattern,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration
> suitable
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> give
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an
> > important
> > > > > > concept
> > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think
> > we
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity
> should
> > be
> > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation
> > in
> > > > > > logical
> > > > > > > > plan
> > > > > > > > > >> > might
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM,
> > Isha
> > > > > > > Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like
> the
> > > > idea
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > >> > > single
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag
> context
> > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be
> > conflicts
> > > > > based
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > Locality
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for
> > operators.
> > > > But
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> Sandeep
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in
> > > case
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > contradicting
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have
> > > > 'affinity'
> > > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > > non
> > > > > > > > > >> > > stream
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat
> > > achievable
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > > > > >> > > node
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests
> > work
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > expected).
> > > > > > > > > >> > But
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications
> > > support
> > > > as
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > >> along
> > > > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of
> > > > > attributes
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml
> > > > > representation
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> complex
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting
> > Java
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or
> ability
> > to
> > > > > > satisfy
> > > > > > > > > >> > > constraints:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not
> > > > available
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > allocating
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are
> > > > obtained.
> > > > > > > > > >> Likewise, in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > case
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should
> keep
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> application in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is
> > > > > satisfied.
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > >> relaxed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the
> > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > rule.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > note
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have
> > > > > non-contradicting
> > > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM,
> > > > Bhupesh
> > > > > > > > Chawda <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of
> > > rules
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators /
> > > partitions
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> containers.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following
> > > points:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not
> > support
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > (locality)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a
> > > stream,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> *any*
> > > > > > > > > >> > two
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the
> > > > general
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > > > > >> > > how
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use
> cases.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to
> anti-affinity,
> > > we
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > >> > cast
> > > > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two
> > operators
> > > > must
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying
> > "these
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > must
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this
> case,
> > > the
> > > > > > second
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > much
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first
> one.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this
> generic
> > > set
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > rules,
> > > > > > > > > >> > there
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > must
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test
> run
> > > > before
> > > > > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > > > > >> > > YARN
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not
> satisfiable,
> > > > then
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > > > >> > > point
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this
> manner.
> > > In
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which
> > the
> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example,
> > some
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > strict
> > > > > > > > > >> > rules
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for
> > > example
> > > > > "on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM,
> > > > > Aniruddha
> > > > > > > > > >> Thombare <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about
> > > > having
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > >> set of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57
> PM,
> > > > > Sandeep
> > > > > > > > > >> Deshmukh <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one
> > > configures
> > > > > > > > > >> > thread/container
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which
> one
> > > will
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should
> > > error
> > > > > out
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > case.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to
> > name
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > "Affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Rules"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just
> > extending
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > allocation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be
> > > > allocated
> > > > > > > > > together.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43
> PM,
> > > > > Chinmay
> > > > > > > > > >> Kolhatkar
> > > > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to
> > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > >> > anti-affinity,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > per
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different
> way
> > > to
> > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > > >> > > locality
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for
> > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > &
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > dag.addStream(...).setLocality
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> locality.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one
> > > > configures
> > > > > > > > > >> > > thread/container
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which
> > one
> > > > will
> > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be
> such
> > > > > > confusion
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> above,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes
> care
> > > of
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from
> how
> > VM
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > configured
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured
> affinity
> > > are
> > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > "affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules".
> > Ultimately
> > > > idea
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > allocate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules",
> > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > configured.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition
> > for
> > > > both
> > > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > (similar
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach
> for
> > > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > >> > locality
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a
> single
> > > > rule
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24
> PM,
> > > Yogi
> > > > > > > > Devendra
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that
> anti-affinity
> > > > across
> > > > > > > > > >> application
> > > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do
> > not
> > > > > have
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > iteration
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I
> > > still
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > Java
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard
> to
> > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could
> > be
> > > > JSON
> > > > > > > > > >> > representation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator
> > names
> > > > has
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in
> the
> > > > JSON
> > > > > > > > > >> > > representation.)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on
> this;
> > > but
> > > > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > > >> > syntax
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid
> > backward
> > > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >> > > issues
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43,
> > Thomas
> > > > > > Weise <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the
> best
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > works
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to
> > > allocate
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> containers
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down
> application
> > > > > startup,
> > > > > > > > > >> especially
> > > > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at
> 10:42
> > > AM,
> > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the
> > > node
> > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > >> requests
> > > > > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b
> > approach
> > > > > > > > altogether?
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > checked
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler
> on
> > > CDH
> > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > >> Yarn
> > > > > > > > > >> > > does
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is
> given
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > request.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual
> hortonworks
> > > > > cluster
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> check
> > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not
> > > honored
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > capacity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > scheduler
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of
> distro
> > > > > > dependent
> > > > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for
> > > regular
> > > > > > > > > expression
> > > > > > > > > >> > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator
> > > names
> > > > > > > > > internally
> > > > > > > > > >> > based
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of
> > > > strings
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> attribute
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name
> > too
> > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to
> > implement
> > > > > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > across
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for
> > later
> > > > > > > > iteration.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at
> 8:59
> > > PM,
> > > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56
> > PM,
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > > > Weise
> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that
> > containers
> > > > are
> > > > > > > taken
> > > > > > > > > away
> > > > > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not
> > good
> > > > > style
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> claim
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is
> > necessary
> > > > to
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics
> and
> > > > > > > > limitations.
> > > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal
> is
> > > for
> > > > > it
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which
> > just
> > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When
> > you
> > > > run
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > CDH
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19
> > PM,
> > > > > Pramod
> > > > > > > > > >> Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the
> > > > > containers
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > available
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not
> > > > > mandatory.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at
> 2:02
> > > PM,
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also
> supporting
> > a
> > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > > >> variation
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets
> the
> > > > total
> > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the
> > > process
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with
> > > > resource
> > > > > > > > > preemption
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from
> > > other
> > > > > > > > > >> applications
> > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense
> to
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > >> > anti-cluster
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016
> at
> > > 1:21
> > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Arkatkar
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical
> > operators
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the
> > same!
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for
> > using
> > > > > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance
> > > > reasons
> > > > > > > (such
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators
> to
> > > land
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> > > > > > > > constraints(for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node
> > since
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding
> > > > > > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not
> > > support
> > > > > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > yet
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to
> get
> > > > your
> > > > > > > views
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify
> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > physical
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for
> this
> > > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator
> > context.
> > > > And
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >> operator
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag
> > with 3
> > > > > > > > operators:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> TestOperator
> > > o1 =
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > > > > > > > > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > > > > > > > > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for
> > O1
> > > > > > > operator:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > > > > > > > >> > > "O3")));
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would
> mean
> > > O1
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This
> > > > applies
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same
> > > operator
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> part
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Hi Chinmay,
Please find my replies inline..
Thanks,
Isha
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Isha,
>
> Couple of points:
> 1. Do the first curly brackets required? They seem to add another level of
> hierarchy.
>
[ISHA] Yes, for serialization to and from Json, wrapped the list of
rules in a wrapper class.
2. operatorRegex, operators, operatorList all seem to mention list list of
> operators. Do you think we can come up with a simpler rather than providing
> more options?
>
[ISHA] Regex and list are just easier ways to specify operators
affinities instead of pairs. Regex can match any Java regex. I am not too
good with regex, so you saw simple example there :)
3. Having JSON innside xml seems a little convoluted to me. I wonder if
> there is a better way to set dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET. Maybe have t as
> XML itself?
>
[ISHA] I tried XML string codec first too. But we use Hadoop's
Configuration object for properties.xml. And it expects property value to
be a string. So we cannot specify value as XML. Have opened a Jira for
this, but it is actually in Hadoop's code, so we can't have XML string
values unless we override Configuration.
4. For operatorRegex which regex language do we support? Is it Java regex
> OR perl/bash based one?
> [ISHA] It is java regex. Simply does a pattern match on all operators in
> dag. It expects at least 2 matches to be found. Otherwise logs warning and
> does not consider the affinity rule valid.
>
> Thanks,
> Chinmay.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > To support setting affinity rules from properties.xml, I added json
> > string codec to read the value. I had to wrap the list of rules in an
> > object call AffinityRuleSet to support easy serialization.
> >
> > Here is an example for setting through property:
> >
> > <property>
> > <name>dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET</name>
> > <value>
> > {
> > "affinityRules": [
> > {
> > "operatorRegex": "rand|console",
> > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > "type": "AFFINITY",
> > "relaxLocality": false
> > },
> > {
> > "operators": {
> > "first": "rand",
> > "second": "passThru"
> > },
> > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> > "relaxLocality": false
> > },
> > {
> > "operatorsList": [
> > "passThru",
> > "passThru"
> > ],
> > "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> > "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> > "relaxLocality": false
> > }
> > ]
> > }
> > </value>
> > </property>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isha
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Isha,
> > >
> > > 2 ways looks fine.
> > >
> > > Just one point, how would user set affinity rules using DAG content
> > > attribute from properties.xml file?
> > > Can you please provide some example for this?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chinmay.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the input Chinmay.
> > > >
> > > > The last parameter true/false is for relaxing the constraint. If
> true,
> > > the
> > > > affinity rule would be relaxed if constraint cannot be satisfied. And
> > if
> > > > false, application will keep requesting and waiting to launch
> > containers
> > > > till all rules are satisfied.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the dag.setAffinity APIs. I can add those couple APIs in
> > > > LogicalPlan as a wrapper that internally can set the Dag Attributes.
> > > > Probably yes, that would be easier to use, to set affinity directly
> on
> > > dag
> > > > object.
> > > >
> > > > Then there would 2 ways to set affinity rules:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Through DAG context attribute (Either through code or through
> > > > properties.xml)
> > > > 2. By calling setAffinity on dag.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Isha
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > chinmay@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface for
> > > > > specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not
> > > confusing
> > > > > users with two different configurations at the same time make a
> > > > > locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in the
> > word
> > > > at
> > > > > the moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after
> some
> > > > time
> > > > > based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream
> > > Locality
> > > > > API.
> > > > >
> > > > > @Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
> > > > > 1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
> > > > > 2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule> and
> > > then
> > > > > setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an API
> in
> > > > > LogicalPlan like following:
> > > > >
> > > > > dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>,
> > false/true)
> > > > >
> > > > > dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) // Not
> > sure
> > > > > what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is
> to
> > > > remove
> > > > > locality for anti-affinity.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Chinmay.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators
> that
> > > are
> > > > > part
> > > > > > of the stream.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <
> amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but
> not
> > > > always
> > > > > > > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators
> that
> > > > > connect
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to
> > the
> > > > > > stream,
> > > > > > > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thks,
> > > > > > > Amol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set
> > > that
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the
> > original
> > > > > > > intention
> > > > > > > > or not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same
> > > > thing?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <
> > > > amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is
> operator
> > > > > > attribute.
> > > > > > > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator
> > > affinity
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers
> stream
> > > > > > locality,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> > > > > > > > independently.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be
> ..._local
> > //
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >> statement is independent of future additions of operators
> to
> > > > this
> > > > > > > stream
> > > > > > > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the
> > same
> > > > > node
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream
> localities
> > > > only
> > > > > > > relate
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> connected operators.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thks
> > > > > > > > >> Amol
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in
> favor
> > of
> > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify
> > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will
> > > > translate
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > >> these
> > > > > > > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators
> > helps
> > > in
> > > > > > > > >> validation
> > > > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting
> > locality
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably
> > > alright
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > include
> > > > > > > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> is.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> > > Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually)
> > > affinity
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > > >> > > than
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on
> specifying
> > it
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more
> > than 2
> > > > > > logical
> > > > > > > > >> > > operators?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > rule
> > > > > > > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the
> > common
> > > > > case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > MxN
> > > > > > > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream
> > operator.
> > > > In
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > >> cases
> > > > > > > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not
> > sure
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for
> > > > handling
> > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs
> > for
> > > > > > > > specifying
> > > > > > > > >> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on
> how
> > > > > > unifiers
> > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More
> > > details
> > > > > > > follow:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an
> > attribute
> > > > in
> > > > > > Dag
> > > > > > > > >> > context.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for
> > > > operator
> > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > >> We
> > > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > add
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not
> connected
> > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > rand
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > console:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> > > > > > OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > >> > "rand",
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions
> of
> > > > rand
> > > > > > > > operator
> > > > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > new
> > > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of
> > > > passThru
> > > > > > > > >> operator,
> > > > > > > > >> > > give
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > new
> > > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL,
> > false));
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES,
> > rules);
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these
> > affinity
> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules
> heavily
> > > > > depends
> > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > >> > > specific
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > > > > > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > > > > > > >> > > To
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an
> > > > > override
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > blacklist
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container
> > > request
> > > > is
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > issued.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up:
> In
> > > case
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > partitioned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow
> affinity
> > or
> > > > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > rules?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have
> kept
> > > them
> > > > > > > > >> independent
> > > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules.
> > > Please
> > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification
> > perspective.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for
> > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > apex
> > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please
> > suggest
> > > > if I
> > > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level
> > > > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > >> > For
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for
> > (anti-)affinity
> > > > > among
> > > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > within
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the
> next
> > > > > > iteration
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>,
> AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > > > > > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container
> > locality
> > > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > operators
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not
> > find
> > > > an
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > setting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can
> cover
> > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to
> > > unconnected
> > > > > > > > operators.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by
> > > regex
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests
> > are
> > > > > > honored
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can
> > go
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement
> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on
> blacklist
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> CDH
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > distro,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific
> > > > requests
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > honored
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests
> > to
> > > > > Yarn,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > containers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with
> > > Fair
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> Capacity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration
> > > issues
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> setting
> > > > > > > > >> > > up
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > CDH
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity
> > rules
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >> > > things
> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to
> > > > > > collaborate
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host
> > name,
> > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > operators
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other
> > applications).
> > > > In
> > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti
> affinity
> > > > using
> > > > > > > > >> > expressions.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or
> > > app1.op2}
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both
> > > > operators
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > host.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> To
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea
> can
> > > be
> > > > > > > applied,
> > > > > > > > >> > > through
> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra
> > ports
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box.
> We
> > > may
> > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > hack
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two
> > operators
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > rule
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but
> it
> > > does
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > >> > like
> > > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a
> > stream.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov
> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > connected
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad
> Rozov
> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL
> > provides
> > > > > > > required
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same
> > > > > > container/JVM. X
> > > > > > > > >> may be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the
> > same
> > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > >> as X,
> > > > > > > > >> > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > X
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has
> affinity
> > to
> > > > X,
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading
> > > > inside
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > JVM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any
> > > other
> > > > > > > host/JVM
> > > > > > > > >> > leads
> > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST
> and
> > > > > > > > LOCALITY_RACK
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are
> describing.
> > > The
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for
> > > > allocation.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different
> > > values.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of
> > > > expressing
> > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > 2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend
> > this
> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> partitions
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad
> > Rozov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but
> > > suppose
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > operator X
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and
> > operator
> > > Z
> > > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > it.
> > > > > > > > >> > > Z
> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases
> it
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> necessary
> > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > let
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity
> > > > > (deploying
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > JVM)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be
> cached
> > > and
> > > > > > reads
> > > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to
> > > thread
> > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > NUMA
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not
> > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on
> stream
> > > is a
> > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > >> case
> > > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL,
> > > > CONTAINER_LOCAL
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by
> > stream.
> > > > But,
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > express
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for
> affinity.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha
> > > Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common
> set
> > of
> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to
> > point
> > > > is:
> > > > > > > > >> affinity of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality.
> > > Since
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream.
> So,
> > it
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > >> sense to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should
> > only
> > > > > check
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > > >> > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> > > > > > > > STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM,
> > Chinmay
> > > > > > > Kolhatkar
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity
> rule, I
> > > was
> > > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > > >> > talking
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of
> > > > implementation.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way
> suggesting
> > an
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > operators.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream,
> > > we're
> > > > > > also,
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > way,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there
> and
> > > > hence
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > >> > straight
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity
> > > configuration
> > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > up,
> > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> > > > > > > anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both
> > > > > > (locality/affinity &
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly
> > > > adopted
> > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere
> Hypervisor's
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> rules.
> > > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does
> both.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick
> > > > suggestion
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > > > > > > > >> ENTITIES
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD
> > > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > > >> O1, O2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be
> thread
> > > > local
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE
> > > > PREFERRED
> > > > > > > > >> O3, O4
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE
> > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > > O1,
> > > > > > > > >> O4
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK
> > > PREFERRED
> > > > > > > O2,
> > > > > > > > O4
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same
> > rack.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for
> > > threads
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > > > >> > way
> > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > pattern,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable
> > for
> > > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> give
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an
> important
> > > > > concept
> > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > >> > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think
> we
> > > > would
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > > >> > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should
> be
> > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation
> in
> > > > > logical
> > > > > > > plan
> > > > > > > > >> > might
> > > > > > > > >> > > > be a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM,
> Isha
> > > > > > Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the
> > > idea
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > >> > > single
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > set
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context
> > > > level.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be
> conflicts
> > > > based
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > Locality
> > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for
> operators.
> > > But
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> Sandeep
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in
> > case
> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > contradicting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have
> > > 'affinity'
> > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > non
> > > > > > > > >> > > stream
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat
> > achievable
> > > by
> > > > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > > > >> > > node
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests
> work
> > > as
> > > > > > > > expected).
> > > > > > > > >> > But
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications
> > support
> > > as
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > >> along
> > > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of
> > > > attributes
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml
> > > > representation
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> complex
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting
> Java
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability
> to
> > > > > satisfy
> > > > > > > > >> > > constraints:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not
> > > available
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > allocating
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are
> > > obtained.
> > > > > > > > >> Likewise, in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > case
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep
> > the
> > > > > > > > >> application in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is
> > > > satisfied.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > >> relaxed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the
> > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > rule.
> > > > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > note
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have
> > > > non-contradicting
> > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM,
> > > Bhupesh
> > > > > > > Chawda <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of
> > rules
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators /
> > partitions
> > > on
> > > > > > > > >> containers.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following
> > points:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not
> support
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > (locality)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a
> > stream,
> > > > not
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> *any*
> > > > > > > > >> > two
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the
> > > general
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > > > >> > > how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity,
> > we
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > cast
> > > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two
> operators
> > > must
> > > > > be
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying
> "these
> > > two
> > > > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > > >> > must
> > > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case,
> > the
> > > > > second
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > much
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic
> > set
> > > > of
> > > > > > > rules,
> > > > > > > > >> > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > must
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run
> > > before
> > > > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > > > >> > > YARN
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable,
> > > then
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > > >> > > point
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner.
> > In
> > > > case
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which
> the
> > > > rules
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example,
> some
> > > > very
> > > > > > > strict
> > > > > > > > >> > rules
> > > > > > > > >> > > > may
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for
> > example
> > > > "on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM,
> > > > Aniruddha
> > > > > > > > >> Thombare <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about
> > > having
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > >> set of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM,
> > > > Sandeep
> > > > > > > > >> Deshmukh <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one
> > configures
> > > > > > > > >> > thread/container
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > local
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one
> > will
> > > > > take
> > > > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should
> > error
> > > > out
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > case.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to
> name
> > > it
> > > > > > > > "Affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > Rules"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just
> extending
> > > our
> > > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > allocation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be
> > > allocated
> > > > > > > > together.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM,
> > > > Chinmay
> > > > > > > > >> Kolhatkar
> > > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to
> > > configuring
> > > > > > > > >> > anti-affinity,
> > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > per
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way
> > to
> > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > >> > > locality
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for
> > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > &
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > dag.addStream(...).setLocality
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> locality.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one
> > > configures
> > > > > > > > >> > > thread/container
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which
> one
> > > will
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such
> > > > > confusion
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> above,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care
> > of
> > > > both
> > > > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how
> VM
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > configured
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity
> > are
> > > > > > called
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > "affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules".
> Ultimately
> > > idea
> > > > > is
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > allocate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules",
> > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configured.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition
> for
> > > both
> > > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > (similar
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for
> > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > >> > locality
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single
> > > rule
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM,
> > Yogi
> > > > > > > Devendra
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity
> > > across
> > > > > > > > >> application
> > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do
> not
> > > > have
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > iteration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I
> > still
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to
> > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could
> be
> > > JSON
> > > > > > > > >> > representation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator
> names
> > > has
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the
> > > JSON
> > > > > > > > >> > > representation.)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this;
> > but
> > > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > >> > syntax
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid
> backward
> > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > >> > > issues
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43,
> Thomas
> > > > > Weise <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > > >> > > works
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to
> > allocate
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> containers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application
> > > > startup,
> > > > > > > > >> especially
> > > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42
> > AM,
> > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > >> Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the
> > node
> > > > > based
> > > > > > > > >> requests
> > > > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b
> approach
> > > > > > > altogether?
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > checked
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on
> > CDH
> > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > >> Yarn
> > > > > > > > >> > > does
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > > >> > > > request.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks
> > > > cluster
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> check
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not
> > honored
> > > in
> > > > > > > > capacity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > scheduler
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro
> > > > > dependent
> > > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for
> > regular
> > > > > > > > expression
> > > > > > > > >> > > sounds
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator
> > names
> > > > > > > > internally
> > > > > > > > >> > based
> > > > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of
> > > strings
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> attribute
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name
> too
> > > :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to
> implement
> > > > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > across
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for
> later
> > > > > > > iteration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59
> > PM,
> > > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56
> PM,
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > > Weise
> > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that
> containers
> > > are
> > > > > > taken
> > > > > > > > away
> > > > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not
> good
> > > > style
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> claim
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is
> necessary
> > > to
> > > > > look
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and
> > > > > > > limitations.
> > > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is
> > for
> > > > it
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which
> just
> > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When
> you
> > > run
> > > > > it
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > CDH
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19
> PM,
> > > > Pramod
> > > > > > > > >> Immaneni <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the
> > > > containers
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > available
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not
> > > > mandatory.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02
> > PM,
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting
> a
> > > > minor
> > > > > > > > >> variation
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the
> > > total
> > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the
> > process
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with
> > > resource
> > > > > > > > preemption
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from
> > other
> > > > > > > > >> applications
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to
> > > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > anti-cluster
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at
> > 1:21
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > > >> > > Arkatkar
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add
> support
> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical
> operators
> > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the
> same!
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for
> using
> > > > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance
> > > reasons
> > > > > > (such
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to
> > land
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> > > > > > > constraints(for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node
> since
> > > > they
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding
> > > > > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not
> > support
> > > > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > yet
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get
> > > your
> > > > > > views
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify
> > anti-affinity
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > physical
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this
> > is
> > > to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator
> context.
> > > And
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> operator
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag
> with 3
> > > > > > > operators:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator
> > o1 =
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > > > > > > > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > > > > > > > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for
> O1
> > > > > > operator:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > > > > > > >> > > "O3")));
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean
> > O1
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This
> > > applies
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same
> > operator
> > > > > name
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> part
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>.
Hi Isha,
Couple of points:
1. Do the first curly brackets required? They seem to add another level of
hierarchy.
2. operatorRegex, operators, operatorList all seem to mention list list of
operators. Do you think we can come up with a simpler rather than providing
more options?
3. Having JSON innside xml seems a little convoluted to me. I wonder if
there is a better way to set dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET. Maybe have t as
XML itself?
4. For operatorRegex which regex language do we support? Is it Java regex
OR perl/bash based one?
Thanks,
Chinmay.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To support setting affinity rules from properties.xml, I added json
> string codec to read the value. I had to wrap the list of rules in an
> object call AffinityRuleSet to support easy serialization.
>
> Here is an example for setting through property:
>
> <property>
> <name>dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET</name>
> <value>
> {
> "affinityRules": [
> {
> "operatorRegex": "rand|console",
> "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> "type": "AFFINITY",
> "relaxLocality": false
> },
> {
> "operators": {
> "first": "rand",
> "second": "passThru"
> },
> "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> "relaxLocality": false
> },
> {
> "operatorsList": [
> "passThru",
> "passThru"
> ],
> "locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
> "type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
> "relaxLocality": false
> }
> ]
> }
> </value>
> </property>
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Isha,
> >
> > 2 ways looks fine.
> >
> > Just one point, how would user set affinity rules using DAG content
> > attribute from properties.xml file?
> > Can you please provide some example for this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chinmay.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the input Chinmay.
> > >
> > > The last parameter true/false is for relaxing the constraint. If true,
> > the
> > > affinity rule would be relaxed if constraint cannot be satisfied. And
> if
> > > false, application will keep requesting and waiting to launch
> containers
> > > till all rules are satisfied.
> > >
> > > Regarding the dag.setAffinity APIs. I can add those couple APIs in
> > > LogicalPlan as a wrapper that internally can set the Dag Attributes.
> > > Probably yes, that would be easier to use, to set affinity directly on
> > dag
> > > object.
> > >
> > > Then there would 2 ways to set affinity rules:
> > >
> > > 1. Through DAG context attribute (Either through code or through
> > > properties.xml)
> > > 2. By calling setAffinity on dag.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Isha
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> chinmay@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface for
> > > > specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not
> > confusing
> > > > users with two different configurations at the same time make a
> > > > locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in the
> word
> > > at
> > > > the moment.
> > > >
> > > > Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after some
> > > time
> > > > based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream
> > Locality
> > > > API.
> > > >
> > > > @Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
> > > > 1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
> > > > 2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule> and
> > then
> > > > setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an API in
> > > > LogicalPlan like following:
> > > >
> > > > dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>,
> false/true)
> > > >
> > > > dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) // Not
> sure
> > > > what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is to
> > > remove
> > > > locality for anti-affinity.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chinmay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators that
> > are
> > > > part
> > > > > of the stream.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but not
> > > always
> > > > > > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators that
> > > > connect
> > > > > to
> > > > > > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to
> the
> > > > > stream,
> > > > > > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thks,
> > > > > > Amol
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set
> > that
> > > > can
> > > > > > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the
> original
> > > > > > intention
> > > > > > > or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same
> > > thing?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <
> > > amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator
> > > > > attribute.
> > > > > > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator
> > affinity
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream
> > > > > locality,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> > > > > > > independently.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local
> //
> > > > This
> > > > > > > >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to
> > > this
> > > > > > stream
> > > > > > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the
> same
> > > > node
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities
> > > only
> > > > > > relate
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> connected operators.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thks
> > > > > > > >> Amol
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor
> of
> > > > this?
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify
> > > > operators
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will
> > > translate
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > >> these
> > > > > > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators
> helps
> > in
> > > > > > > >> validation
> > > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting
> locality
> > > or
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably
> > alright
> > > > to
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > include
> > > > > > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> is.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> > > Isha
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually)
> > affinity
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > >> > > than
> > > > > > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying
> it
> > > as
> > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more
> than 2
> > > > > logical
> > > > > > > >> > > operators?
> > > > > > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with
> > the
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > rule
> > > > > > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the
> common
> > > > case
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > MxN
> > > > > > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream
> operator.
> > > In
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > >> cases
> > > > > > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not
> sure
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for
> > > handling
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs
> for
> > > > > > > specifying
> > > > > > > >> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how
> > > > > unifiers
> > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More
> > details
> > > > > > follow:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an
> attribute
> > > in
> > > > > Dag
> > > > > > > >> > context.
> > > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for
> > > operator
> > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > >> We
> > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > add
> > > > > > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected
> > > > > operators
> > > > > > > rand
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > console:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> > > > > OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > >> > "rand",
> > > > > > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of
> > > rand
> > > > > > > operator
> > > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> new
> > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of
> > > passThru
> > > > > > > >> operator,
> > > > > > > >> > > give
> > > > > > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> new
> > > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL,
> false));
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > > > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES,
> rules);
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these
> affinity
> > > > rules
> > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily
> > > > depends
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > >> > > specific
> > > > > > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > > > > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > > > > > >> > > To
> > > > > > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an
> > > > override
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > blacklist
> > > > > > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container
> > request
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > issued.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In
> > case
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > partitioned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity
> or
> > > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > rules?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept
> > them
> > > > > > > >> independent
> > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules.
> > Please
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification
> perspective.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for
> > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > apex
> > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please
> suggest
> > > if I
> > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > something.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level
> > > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > >> > For
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for
> (anti-)affinity
> > > > among
> > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > >> > > > > within
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next
> > > > > iteration
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > > > > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container
> locality
> > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > >> > > > operators
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not
> find
> > > an
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > setting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover
> > > > > container
> > > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level
> > > > affinity
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to
> > unconnected
> > > > > > > operators.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by
> > regex
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests
> are
> > > > > honored
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can
> go
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement
> > > affinity
> > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist
> > > > approach
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> CDH
> > > > > > > >> > > > > distro,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific
> > > requests
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > honored
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests
> to
> > > > Yarn,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > >> > > > > containers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with
> > Fair
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> Capacity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration
> > issues
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> setting
> > > > > > > >> > > up
> > > > > > > >> > > > > CDH
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity
> rules
> > > > with
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > >> > > things
> > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to
> > > > > collaborate
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host
> name,
> > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > operators
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other
> applications).
> > > In
> > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity
> > > using
> > > > > > > >> > expressions.
> > > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or
> > app1.op2}
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both
> > > operators
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > host.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> To
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can
> > be
> > > > > > applied,
> > > > > > > >> > > through
> > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra
> ports
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We
> > may
> > > > > apply
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > hack
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two
> operators
> > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > rule
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > >> > like
> > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > good
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a
> stream.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are
> > not
> > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > >> > > > connected
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov
> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL
> provides
> > > > > > required
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same
> > > > > container/JVM. X
> > > > > > > >> may be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the
> same
> > > > > > container
> > > > > > > >> as X,
> > > > > > > >> > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > X
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity
> to
> > > X,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > specific
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading
> > > inside
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> > JVM
> > > > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any
> > other
> > > > > > host/JVM
> > > > > > > >> > leads
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> > > > > > > LOCALITY_RACK
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing.
> > The
> > > > > value
> > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for
> > > allocation.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> > > could
> > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different
> > values.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of
> > > expressing
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > for
> > > > > > > >> > > 2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend
> this
> > to
> > > > > > > >> partitions
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad
> Rozov
> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but
> > suppose
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > operator X
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and
> operator
> > Z
> > > > > reads
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > it.
> > > > > > > >> > > Z
> > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it
> > may
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> necessary
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > let
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity
> > > > (deploying
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > JVM)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached
> > and
> > > > > reads
> > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to
> > thread
> > > > > local
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > NUMA
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not
> > > > supported.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream
> > is a
> > > > > > special
> > > > > > > >> case
> > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL,
> > > CONTAINER_LOCAL
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by
> stream.
> > > But,
> > > > > way
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > express
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha
> > Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set
> of
> > > > rules
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to
> point
> > > is:
> > > > > > > >> affinity of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality.
> > Since
> > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So,
> it
> > > > makes
> > > > > > > >> sense to
> > > > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should
> only
> > > > check
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > >> > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> > > > > > > STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM,
> Chinmay
> > > > > > Kolhatkar
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I
> > was
> > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > >> > talking
> > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of
> > > implementation.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting
> an
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > operators.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream,
> > we're
> > > > > also,
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > way,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and
> > > hence
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > >> > straight
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity
> > configuration
> > > > > comes
> > > > > > > up,
> > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> > > > > > anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both
> > > > > (locality/affinity &
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly
> > > adopted
> > > > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> rules.
> > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick
> > > suggestion
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > > > > > > >> ENTITIES
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD
> > REQUIRED
> > > > > > > >> O1, O2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread
> > > local
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE
> > > PREFERRED
> > > > > > > >> O3, O4
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE
> REQUIRED
> > > > > > > O1,
> > > > > > > >> O4
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK
> > PREFERRED
> > > > > > O2,
> > > > > > > O4
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same
> rack.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for
> > threads
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > > >> > way
> > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > pattern,
> > > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable
> for
> > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> give
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important
> > > > concept
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > >> > > > quickly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we
> > > would
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > >> > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be
> > > > > validated
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in
> > > > logical
> > > > > > plan
> > > > > > > >> > might
> > > > > > > >> > > > be a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha
> > > > > Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the
> > idea
> > > of
> > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > >> > > single
> > > > > > > >> > > > > set
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context
> > > level.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts
> > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > Locality
> > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators.
> > But
> > > > as
> > > > > > > >> Sandeep
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in
> case
> > of
> > > > > > > >> > contradicting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have
> > 'affinity'
> > > > > among
> > > > > > > non
> > > > > > > >> > > stream
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat
> achievable
> > by
> > > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > > >> > > node
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work
> > as
> > > > > > > expected).
> > > > > > > >> > But
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications
> support
> > as
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > >> along
> > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of
> > > attributes
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml
> > > representation
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> complex
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java
> > > > object
> > > > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to
> > > > satisfy
> > > > > > > >> > > constraints:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not
> > available
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > allocating
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are
> > obtained.
> > > > > > > >> Likewise, in
> > > > > > > >> > > > case
> > > > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep
> the
> > > > > > > >> application in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is
> > > satisfied.
> > > > > For
> > > > > > > >> relaxed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the
> > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > rule.
> > > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > > >> > > > > note
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have
> > > non-contradicting
> > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM,
> > Bhupesh
> > > > > > Chawda <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of
> rules
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators /
> partitions
> > on
> > > > > > > >> containers.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following
> points:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support
> > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > (locality)
> > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a
> stream,
> > > not
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> *any*
> > > > > > > >> > two
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the
> > general
> > > > case
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > > >> > > how
> > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity,
> we
> > > > cannot
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > cast
> > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators
> > must
> > > > be
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these
> > two
> > > > > > > operators
> > > > > > > >> > must
> > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case,
> the
> > > > second
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > >> > > > much
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic
> set
> > > of
> > > > > > rules,
> > > > > > > >> > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > must
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run
> > before
> > > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > > >> > > YARN
> > > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable,
> > then
> > > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > >> > > point
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner.
> In
> > > case
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the
> > > rules
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some
> > > very
> > > > > > strict
> > > > > > > >> > rules
> > > > > > > >> > > > may
> > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for
> example
> > > "on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM,
> > > Aniruddha
> > > > > > > >> Thombare <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about
> > having
> > > > > single
> > > > > > > >> set of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM,
> > > Sandeep
> > > > > > > >> Deshmukh <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one
> configures
> > > > > > > >> > thread/container
> > > > > > > >> > > > > local
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one
> will
> > > > take
> > > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should
> error
> > > out
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > case.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name
> > it
> > > > > > > "Affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > Rules"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending
> > our
> > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > >> > > > > allocation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be
> > allocated
> > > > > > > together.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM,
> > > Chinmay
> > > > > > > >> Kolhatkar
> > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to
> > configuring
> > > > > > > >> > anti-affinity,
> > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > per
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way
> to
> > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > >> > > locality
> > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for
> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > &
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> dag.addStream(...).setLocality
> > > for
> > > > > > > >> locality.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one
> > configures
> > > > > > > >> > > thread/container
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one
> > will
> > > > > take
> > > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such
> > > > confusion
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> above,
> > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care
> of
> > > both
> > > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > configured
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity
> are
> > > > > called
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > "affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately
> > idea
> > > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > allocate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules",
> > > anti-affinity
> > > > is
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> > > > > configured.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for
> > both
> > > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > (similar
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for
> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > >> > locality
> > > > > > > >> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single
> > rule
> > > > and
> > > > > > call
> > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > "affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM,
> Yogi
> > > > > > Devendra
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity
> > across
> > > > > > > >> application
> > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not
> > > have
> > > > it
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > iteration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I
> still
> > > > think
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > object
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to
> > > > configure
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be
> > JSON
> > > > > > > >> > representation
> > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names
> > has
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the
> > JSON
> > > > > > > >> > > representation.)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this;
> but
> > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > >> > syntax
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > >> > > issues
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas
> > > > Weise <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best
> > > > approach
> > > > > -
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > >> > > works
> > > > > > > >> > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to
> allocate
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> containers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application
> > > startup,
> > > > > > > >> especially
> > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42
> AM,
> > > Isha
> > > > > > > >> Arkatkar <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the
> node
> > > > based
> > > > > > > >> requests
> > > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach
> > > > > > altogether?
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > checked
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on
> CDH
> > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > >> Yarn
> > > > > > > >> > > does
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in
> > the
> > > > > > > container
> > > > > > > >> > > > request.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks
> > > cluster
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> check
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not
> honored
> > in
> > > > > > > capacity
> > > > > > > >> > > > scheduler
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro
> > > > dependent
> > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for
> regular
> > > > > > > expression
> > > > > > > >> > > sounds
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator
> names
> > > > > > > internally
> > > > > > > >> > based
> > > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of
> > strings
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> attribute
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too
> > :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> > > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > across
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later
> > > > > > iteration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59
> PM,
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM,
> > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > Weise
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers
> > are
> > > > > taken
> > > > > > > away
> > > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good
> > > style
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> claim
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary
> > to
> > > > look
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and
> > > > > > limitations.
> > > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is
> for
> > > it
> > > > to
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just
> > > > recently
> > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you
> > run
> > > > it
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > CDH
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM,
> > > Pramod
> > > > > > > >> Immaneni <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the
> > > containers
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > available
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not
> > > mandatory.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02
> PM,
> > > > Thomas
> > > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a
> > > minor
> > > > > > > >> variation
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the
> > total
> > > > > number
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the
> process
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with
> > resource
> > > > > > > preemption
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from
> other
> > > > > > > >> applications
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to
> > > support
> > > > > > > >> > anti-cluster
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at
> 1:21
> > > PM,
> > > > > > Isha
> > > > > > > >> > > Arkatkar
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support
> > for
> > > > > > > >> > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators
> > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> > > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance
> > reasons
> > > > > (such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to
> land
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> > > > > > constraints(for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since
> > > they
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding
> > > > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not
> support
> > > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > yet
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get
> > your
> > > > > views
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify
> anti-affinity
> > > for
> > > > > > > physical
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this
> is
> > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > attribute
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context.
> > And
> > > > an
> > > > > > > >> operator
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which
> should
> > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3
> > > > > > operators:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator
> o1 =
> > > > > > > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > > > > > > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > > > > > > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1
> > > > > operator:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > > > > > >> > > "O3")));
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean
> O1
> > > > should
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This
> > applies
> > > > to
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same
> operator
> > > > name
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> part
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Hi,
To support setting affinity rules from properties.xml, I added json
string codec to read the value. I had to wrap the list of rules in an
object call AffinityRuleSet to support easy serialization.
Here is an example for setting through property:
<property>
<name>dt.attr.AFFINITY_RULES_SET</name>
<value>
{
"affinityRules": [
{
"operatorRegex": "rand|console",
"locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
"type": "AFFINITY",
"relaxLocality": false
},
{
"operators": {
"first": "rand",
"second": "passThru"
},
"locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
"type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
"relaxLocality": false
},
{
"operatorsList": [
"passThru",
"passThru"
],
"locality": "NODE_LOCAL",
"type": "ANTI_AFFINITY",
"relaxLocality": false
}
]
}
</value>
</property>
Thanks,
Isha
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Isha,
>
> 2 ways looks fine.
>
> Just one point, how would user set affinity rules using DAG content
> attribute from properties.xml file?
> Can you please provide some example for this?
>
> Thanks,
> Chinmay.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the input Chinmay.
> >
> > The last parameter true/false is for relaxing the constraint. If true,
> the
> > affinity rule would be relaxed if constraint cannot be satisfied. And if
> > false, application will keep requesting and waiting to launch containers
> > till all rules are satisfied.
> >
> > Regarding the dag.setAffinity APIs. I can add those couple APIs in
> > LogicalPlan as a wrapper that internally can set the Dag Attributes.
> > Probably yes, that would be easier to use, to set affinity directly on
> dag
> > object.
> >
> > Then there would 2 ways to set affinity rules:
> >
> > 1. Through DAG context attribute (Either through code or through
> > properties.xml)
> > 2. By calling setAffinity on dag.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isha
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface for
> > > specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not
> confusing
> > > users with two different configurations at the same time make a
> > > locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in the word
> > at
> > > the moment.
> > >
> > > Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after some
> > time
> > > based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream
> Locality
> > > API.
> > >
> > > @Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
> > > 1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
> > > 2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule> and
> then
> > > setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an API in
> > > LogicalPlan like following:
> > >
> > > dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>, false/true)
> > >
> > > dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) // Not sure
> > > what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is to
> > remove
> > > locality for anti-affinity.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chinmay.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators that
> are
> > > part
> > > > of the stream.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but not
> > always
> > > > > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> > > > >
> > > > > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators that
> > > connect
> > > > to
> > > > > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> > > > >
> > > > > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to the
> > > > stream,
> > > > > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thks,
> > > > > Amol
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set
> that
> > > can
> > > > > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original
> > > > > intention
> > > > > > or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same
> > thing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <
> > amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator
> > > > attribute.
> > > > > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator
> affinity
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream
> > > > locality,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> > > > > > independently.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local //
> > > This
> > > > > > >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to
> > this
> > > > > stream
> > > > > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same
> > > node
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities
> > only
> > > > > relate
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> connected operators.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thks
> > > > > > >> Amol
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of
> > > this?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify
> > > operators
> > > > > > list
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will
> > translate
> > > > both
> > > > > > >> these
> > > > > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps
> in
> > > > > > >> validation
> > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality
> > or
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably
> alright
> > > to
> > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > include
> > > > > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> is.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> > > Isha
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually)
> affinity
> > > > > between
> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > >> > > than
> > > > > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it
> > as
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2
> > > > logical
> > > > > > >> > > operators?
> > > > > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with
> the
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > >> > rule
> > > > > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common
> > > case
> > > > of
> > > > > > MxN
> > > > > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator.
> > In
> > > > > other
> > > > > > >> cases
> > > > > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure
> it
> > > is
> > > > > all
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for
> > handling
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for
> > > > > > specifying
> > > > > > >> > > > affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how
> > > > unifiers
> > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More
> details
> > > > > follow:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute
> > in
> > > > Dag
> > > > > > >> > context.
> > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for
> > operator
> > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > >> We
> > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > >> > > > add
> > > > > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected
> > > > operators
> > > > > > rand
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > console:
> > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> > > > OperatorPair(
> > > > > > >> > "rand",
> > > > > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of
> > rand
> > > > > > operator
> > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > >> > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of
> > passThru
> > > > > > >> operator,
> > > > > > >> > > give
> > > > > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity
> > > rules
> > > > > > here:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily
> > > depends
> > > > > node
> > > > > > >> > > specific
> > > > > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > > > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > > > > >> > > To
> > > > > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an
> > > override
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > blacklist
> > > > > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container
> request
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > issued.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In
> case
> > > of
> > > > > > >> > partitioned
> > > > > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > rules?
> > > > > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept
> them
> > > > > > >> independent
> > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules.
> Please
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > >> what
> > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for
> affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > rules
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > apex
> > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest
> > if I
> > > > > > missed
> > > > > > >> > > > > something.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level
> > > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > >> > For
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity
> > > among
> > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > >> > > > > within
> > > > > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next
> > > > iteration
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > > > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality
> > > > > between 2
> > > > > > >> > > > operators
> > > > > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find
> > an
> > > > API
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > setting
> > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover
> > > > container
> > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level
> > > affinity
> > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to
> unconnected
> > > > > > operators.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by
> regex
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are
> > > > honored
> > > > > by
> > > > > > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > > > > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement
> > affinity
> > > > > rules.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist
> > > approach
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> CDH
> > > > > > >> > > > > distro,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific
> > requests
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > honored
> > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to
> > > Yarn,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > >> > > > > containers
> > > > > > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with
> Fair
> > > and
> > > > > > >> Capacity
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration
> issues
> > > > when
> > > > > > >> setting
> > > > > > >> > > up
> > > > > > >> > > > > CDH
> > > > > > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules
> > > with
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > >> > > things
> > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to
> > > > collaborate
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Isha
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name,
> > but
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > operators
> > > > > > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications).
> > In
> > > > > > general
> > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity
> > using
> > > > > > >> > expressions.
> > > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or
> app1.op2}
> > > and
> > > > > > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both
> > operators
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > >> > > > > host.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> To
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can
> be
> > > > > applied,
> > > > > > >> > > through
> > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports
> > > that
> > > > > > >> operators
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We
> may
> > > > apply
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > >> > > > hack
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators
> > with
> > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > rule
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it
> does
> > > not
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > >> > like
> > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > good
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are
> not
> > > > > directly
> > > > > > >> > > > connected
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides
> > > > > required
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same
> > > > container/JVM. X
> > > > > > >> may be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same
> > > > > container
> > > > > > >> as X,
> > > > > > >> > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > X
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to
> > X,
> > > > not
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > >> > > > > specific
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading
> > inside
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > >> > JVM
> > > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any
> other
> > > > > host/JVM
> > > > > > >> > leads
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> > > > > > LOCALITY_RACK
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing.
> The
> > > > value
> > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > >> > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for
> > allocation.
> > > > The
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > >> > > could
> > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different
> values.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of
> > expressing
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > >> > for
> > > > > > >> > > 2
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this
> to
> > > > > > >> partitions
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov
> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but
> suppose
> > > that
> > > > > > >> > operator X
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator
> Z
> > > > reads
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > it.
> > > > > > >> > > Z
> > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it
> may
> > > be
> > > > > > >> necessary
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > let
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity
> > > (deploying
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > >> > > > > JVM)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached
> and
> > > > reads
> > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to
> thread
> > > > local
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > NUMA
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not
> > > supported.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream
> is a
> > > > > special
> > > > > > >> case
> > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL,
> > CONTAINER_LOCAL
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream.
> > But,
> > > > way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > express
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha
> Arkatkar <
> > > > > > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of
> > > rules
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point
> > is:
> > > > > > >> affinity of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality.
> Since
> > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it
> > > makes
> > > > > > >> sense to
> > > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only
> > > check
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > REQUIRED
> > > > > > >> > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> > > > > > STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay
> > > > > Kolhatkar
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I
> was
> > > > > mainly
> > > > > > >> > talking
> > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of
> > implementation.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > operators.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream,
> we're
> > > > also,
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> > > way,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and
> > hence
> > > > was
> > > > > > >> > straight
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity
> configuration
> > > > comes
> > > > > > up,
> > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> > > > > anti-affinity.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both
> > > > (locality/affinity &
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly
> > adopted
> > > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's
> > > > affinity
> > > > > > >> rules.
> > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick
> > suggestion
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > > > > > >> ENTITIES
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD
> REQUIRED
> > > > > > >> O1, O2
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread
> > local
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE
> > PREFERRED
> > > > > > >> O3, O4
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED
> > > > > > O1,
> > > > > > >> O4
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK
> PREFERRED
> > > > > O2,
> > > > > > O4
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for
> threads
> > > is
> > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > >> > way
> > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> > > pattern,
> > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for
> > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own
> > > configuration
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> give
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important
> > > concept
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > >> > > > quickly
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we
> > would
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> add
> > > > > > >> > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be
> > > > validated
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in
> > > logical
> > > > > plan
> > > > > > >> > might
> > > > > > >> > > > be a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha
> > > > Arkatkar <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the
> idea
> > of
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > >> > > single
> > > > > > >> > > > > set
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context
> > level.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts
> > based
> > > > on
> > > > > > >> > Locality
> > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators.
> But
> > > as
> > > > > > >> Sandeep
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case
> of
> > > > > > >> > contradicting
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have
> 'affinity'
> > > > among
> > > > > > non
> > > > > > >> > > stream
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable
> by
> > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > >> > > node
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work
> as
> > > > > > expected).
> > > > > > >> > But
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support
> as
> > > > well
> > > > > > >> along
> > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of
> > attributes
> > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml
> > representation
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> complex
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java
> > > object
> > > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to
> > > satisfy
> > > > > > >> > > constraints:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not
> available
> > > for
> > > > > > >> > allocating
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are
> obtained.
> > > > > > >> Likewise, in
> > > > > > >> > > > case
> > > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
> > > > > > >> application in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is
> > satisfied.
> > > > For
> > > > > > >> relaxed
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the
> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > rule.
> > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > >> > > > > note
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have
> > non-contradicting
> > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM,
> Bhupesh
> > > > > Chawda <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions
> on
> > > > > > >> containers.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support
> > > affinity
> > > > > > >> > (locality)
> > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream,
> > not
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> *any*
> > > > > > >> > two
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the
> general
> > > case
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > >> > > how
> > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we
> > > cannot
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > cast
> > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators
> must
> > > be
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these
> two
> > > > > > operators
> > > > > > >> > must
> > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the
> > > second
> > > > > one
> > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > >> > > > much
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set
> > of
> > > > > rules,
> > > > > > >> > there
> > > > > > >> > > > must
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run
> before
> > > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > > >> > > YARN
> > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable,
> then
> > > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > >> > > point
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In
> > case
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the
> > rules
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some
> > very
> > > > > strict
> > > > > > >> > rules
> > > > > > >> > > > may
> > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example
> > "on
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM,
> > Aniruddha
> > > > > > >> Thombare <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about
> having
> > > > single
> > > > > > >> set of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM,
> > Sandeep
> > > > > > >> Deshmukh <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > > > > >> > thread/container
> > > > > > >> > > > > local
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will
> > > take
> > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error
> > out
> > > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > case.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name
> it
> > > > > > "Affinity
> > > > > > >> > > Rules"
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending
> our
> > > > > > container
> > > > > > >> > > > > allocation
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be
> allocated
> > > > > > together.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM,
> > Chinmay
> > > > > > >> Kolhatkar
> > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to
> configuring
> > > > > > >> > anti-affinity,
> > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > per
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to
> > > > > configure
> > > > > > >> > > locality
> > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for
> > anti-affinity
> > > > &
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality
> > for
> > > > > > >> locality.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one
> configures
> > > > > > >> > > thread/container
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one
> will
> > > > take
> > > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such
> > > confusion
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> above,
> > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of
> > both
> > > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM
> > > > affinity
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > configured
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are
> > > > called
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > "affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately
> idea
> > > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > allocate
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules",
> > anti-affinity
> > > is
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > >> > > > > configured.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for
> both
> > > > > > affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > (similar
> > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for
> > > > configuring
> > > > > > >> > locality
> > > > > > >> > > > > rules
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single
> rule
> > > and
> > > > > call
> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > >> > > > > "affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi
> > > > > Devendra
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity
> across
> > > > > > >> application
> > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not
> > have
> > > it
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > iteration
> > > > > > >> > > > > 1.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still
> > > think
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > object
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to
> > > configure
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be
> JSON
> > > > > > >> > representation
> > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names
> has
> > > > some
> > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the
> JSON
> > > > > > >> > > representation.)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but
> > > > > attribute
> > > > > > >> > syntax
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > >> > > issues
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas
> > > Weise <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best
> > > approach
> > > > -
> > > > > if
> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > >> > > works
> > > > > > >> > > > > :-)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate
> > the
> > > > > > >> containers
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application
> > startup,
> > > > > > >> especially
> > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM,
> > Isha
> > > > > > >> Arkatkar <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node
> > > based
> > > > > > >> requests
> > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach
> > > > > altogether?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > checked
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH
> > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > >> Yarn
> > > > > > >> > > does
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in
> the
> > > > > > container
> > > > > > >> > > > request.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks
> > cluster
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> check
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored
> in
> > > > > > capacity
> > > > > > >> > > > scheduler
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro
> > > dependent
> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular
> > > > > > expression
> > > > > > >> > > sounds
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names
> > > > > > internally
> > > > > > >> > based
> > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of
> strings
> > > for
> > > > > > >> attribute
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too
> :)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > across
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later
> > > > > iteration.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM,
> > > > Thomas
> > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM,
> > > Thomas
> > > > > > Weise
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers
> are
> > > > taken
> > > > > > away
> > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good
> > style
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> claim
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary
> to
> > > look
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and
> > > > > limitations.
> > > > > > >> For
> > > > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > >> > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just
> > > recently
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you
> run
> > > it
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > CDH
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM,
> > Pramod
> > > > > > >> Immaneni <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the
> > containers
> > > be
> > > > > > >> > available
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not
> > mandatory.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM,
> > > Thomas
> > > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a
> > minor
> > > > > > >> variation
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the
> total
> > > > number
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with
> resource
> > > > > > preemption
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
> > > > > > >> applications
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to
> > support
> > > > > > >> > anti-cluster
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21
> > PM,
> > > > > Isha
> > > > > > >> > > Arkatkar
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support
> for
> > > > > > >> > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators
> on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> > > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance
> reasons
> > > > (such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> > > > > constraints(for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since
> > they
> > > > use
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding
> > > Anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
> > > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > yet
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get
> your
> > > > views
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity
> > for
> > > > > > physical
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is
> to
> > > > have
> > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > attribute
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context.
> And
> > > an
> > > > > > >> operator
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should
> > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3
> > > > > operators:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > > > > > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > > > > > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > > > > > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1
> > > > operator:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > > > > >> > > "O3")));
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This
> applies
> > > to
> > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator
> > > name
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> part
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>.
Hi Isha,
2 ways looks fine.
Just one point, how would user set affinity rules using DAG content
attribute from properties.xml file?
Can you please provide some example for this?
Thanks,
Chinmay.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the input Chinmay.
>
> The last parameter true/false is for relaxing the constraint. If true, the
> affinity rule would be relaxed if constraint cannot be satisfied. And if
> false, application will keep requesting and waiting to launch containers
> till all rules are satisfied.
>
> Regarding the dag.setAffinity APIs. I can add those couple APIs in
> LogicalPlan as a wrapper that internally can set the Dag Attributes.
> Probably yes, that would be easier to use, to set affinity directly on dag
> object.
>
> Then there would 2 ways to set affinity rules:
>
> 1. Through DAG context attribute (Either through code or through
> properties.xml)
> 2. By calling setAffinity on dag.
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface for
> > specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not confusing
> > users with two different configurations at the same time make a
> > locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in the word
> at
> > the moment.
> >
> > Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after some
> time
> > based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream Locality
> > API.
> >
> > @Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
> > 1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
> > 2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule> and then
> > setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an API in
> > LogicalPlan like following:
> >
> > dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>, false/true)
> >
> > dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) // Not sure
> > what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is to
> remove
> > locality for anti-affinity.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chinmay.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators that are
> > part
> > > of the stream.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but not
> always
> > > > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> > > >
> > > > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators that
> > connect
> > > to
> > > > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> > > >
> > > > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to the
> > > stream,
> > > > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> > > >
> > > > Thks,
> > > > Amol
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set that
> > can
> > > > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original
> > > > intention
> > > > > or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same
> thing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <
> amol@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator
> > > attribute.
> > > > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream
> > > locality,
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> > > > > independently.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local //
> > This
> > > > > >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to
> this
> > > > stream
> > > > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same
> > node
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities
> only
> > > > relate
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> connected operators.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thks
> > > > > >> Amol
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of
> > this?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify
> > operators
> > > > > list
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will
> translate
> > > both
> > > > > >> these
> > > > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in
> > > > > >> validation
> > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality
> or
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright
> > to
> > > > not
> > > > > >> > include
> > > > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> > > implementation
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> is.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> > > Isha
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity
> > > > between
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >> > > than
> > > > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it
> as
> > > > > multiple
> > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2
> > > logical
> > > > > >> > > operators?
> > > > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > >> > rule
> > > > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common
> > case
> > > of
> > > > > MxN
> > > > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator.
> In
> > > > other
> > > > > >> cases
> > > > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it
> > is
> > > > all
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for
> handling
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > >> > > rules
> > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for
> > > > > specifying
> > > > > >> > > > affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how
> > > unifiers
> > > > > >> should
> > > > > >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details
> > > > follow:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute
> in
> > > Dag
> > > > > >> > context.
> > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for
> operator
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > >> We
> > > > > >> > can
> > > > > >> > > > add
> > > > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected
> > > operators
> > > > > rand
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > console:
> > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> > > OperatorPair(
> > > > > >> > "rand",
> > > > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of
> rand
> > > > > operator
> > > > > >> > with
> > > > > >> > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of
> passThru
> > > > > >> operator,
> > > > > >> > > give
> > > > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity
> > rules
> > > > > here:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily
> > depends
> > > > node
> > > > > >> > > specific
> > > > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > > > >> > > To
> > > > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an
> > override
> > > to
> > > > > >> > > blacklist
> > > > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request
> is
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > issued.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case
> > of
> > > > > >> > partitioned
> > > > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > > rules?
> > > > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
> > > > > >> independent
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please
> > > > suggest
> > > > > >> what
> > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity
> > > rules
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > apex
> > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest
> if I
> > > > > missed
> > > > > >> > > > > something.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level
> > affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > > rules.
> > > > > >> > For
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity
> > among
> > > > > >> operators
> > > > > >> > > > > within
> > > > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next
> > > iteration
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality
> > > > between 2
> > > > > >> > > > operators
> > > > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find
> an
> > > API
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > setting
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover
> > > container
> > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > well.
> > > > > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level
> > affinity
> > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected
> > > > > operators.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are
> > > honored
> > > > by
> > > > > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > > > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go
> with
> > > the
> > > > > >> > approach
> > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement
> affinity
> > > > rules.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist
> > approach
> > > > for
> > > > > >> CDH
> > > > > >> > > > > distro,
> > > > > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific
> requests
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > honored
> > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to
> > Yarn,
> > > > but
> > > > > no
> > > > > >> > > > > containers
> > > > > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > > > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair
> > and
> > > > > >> Capacity
> > > > > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues
> > > when
> > > > > >> setting
> > > > > >> > > up
> > > > > >> > > > > CDH
> > > > > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules
> > with
> > > > > these
> > > > > >> > > things
> > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to
> > > collaborate
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> > > > > > Isha
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name,
> but
> > > to
> > > > > >> > operators
> > > > > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications).
> In
> > > > > general
> > > > > >> > this
> > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity
> using
> > > > > >> > expressions.
> > > > > >> > > > For
> > > > > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2}
> > and
> > > > > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both
> operators
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > same
> > > > > >> > > > > host.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>> To
> > > > > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be
> > > > applied,
> > > > > >> > > through
> > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports
> > that
> > > > > >> operators
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may
> > > apply
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > same
> > > > > >> > > > hack
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators
> with
> > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > rule
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does
> > not
> > > > > look
> > > > > >> > like
> > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > good
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not
> > > > directly
> > > > > >> > > > connected
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides
> > > > required
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same
> > > container/JVM. X
> > > > > >> may be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same
> > > > container
> > > > > >> as X,
> > > > > >> > > so
> > > > > >> > > > X
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to
> X,
> > > not
> > > > to
> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >> > > > > specific
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading
> inside
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > >> > JVM
> > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other
> > > > host/JVM
> > > > > >> > leads
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> > > > > LOCALITY_RACK
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The
> > > value
> > > > > >> would
> > > > > >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for
> allocation.
> > > The
> > > > > same
> > > > > >> > > could
> > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of
> expressing
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > >> > for
> > > > > >> > > 2
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to
> > > > > >> partitions
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose
> > that
> > > > > >> > operator X
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z
> > > reads
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > it.
> > > > > >> > > Z
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may
> > be
> > > > > >> necessary
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > let
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity
> > (deploying
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > >> > > > > JVM)
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and
> > > reads
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread
> > > local
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> > NUMA
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not
> > supported.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a
> > > > special
> > > > > >> case
> > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL,
> CONTAINER_LOCAL
> > > > would
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream.
> But,
> > > way
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > express
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of
> > rules
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > configuring
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point
> is:
> > > > > >> affinity of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since
> > this
> > > > is
> > > > > >> only
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it
> > makes
> > > > > >> sense to
> > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only
> > check
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > REQUIRED
> > > > > >> > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> > > > > STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay
> > > > Kolhatkar
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was
> > > > mainly
> > > > > >> > talking
> > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of
> implementation.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an
> > > > affinity
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > operators.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're
> > > also,
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > way,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and
> hence
> > > was
> > > > > >> > straight
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration
> > > comes
> > > > > up,
> > > > > >> > one
> > > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> > > > anti-affinity.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both
> > > (locality/affinity &
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly
> adopted
> > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's
> > > affinity
> > > > > >> rules.
> > > > > >> > I
> > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick
> suggestion
> > on
> > > > how
> > > > > >> both
> > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > > > > >> ENTITIES
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED
> > > > > >> O1, O2
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread
> local
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE
> PREFERRED
> > > > > >> O3, O4
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED
> > > > > O1,
> > > > > >> O4
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED
> > > > O2,
> > > > > O4
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads
> > is
> > > > > >> another
> > > > > >> > way
> > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted
> > > > configuration
> > > > > >> > > pattern,
> > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for
> > > > > distributed
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own
> > configuration
> > > > and
> > > > > >> give
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important
> > concept
> > > > > might
> > > > > >> > > > quickly
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we
> would
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> add
> > > > > >> > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be
> > > validated
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in
> > logical
> > > > plan
> > > > > >> > might
> > > > > >> > > > be a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha
> > > Arkatkar <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea
> of
> > > > > having
> > > > > >> > > single
> > > > > >> > > > > set
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context
> level.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts
> based
> > > on
> > > > > >> > Locality
> > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But
> > as
> > > > > >> Sandeep
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> > > > > >> > contradicting
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity'
> > > among
> > > > > non
> > > > > >> > > stream
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by
> > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > >> > > node
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as
> > > > > expected).
> > > > > >> > But
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as
> > > well
> > > > > >> along
> > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of
> attributes
> > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml
> representation
> > > for
> > > > > >> complex
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java
> > object
> > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to
> > satisfy
> > > > > >> > > constraints:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available
> > for
> > > > > >> > allocating
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained.
> > > > > >> Likewise, in
> > > > > >> > > > case
> > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
> > > > > >> application in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is
> satisfied.
> > > For
> > > > > >> relaxed
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the
> > anti-affinity
> > > > > rule.
> > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > >> > > > > note
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have
> non-contradicting
> > > > > rules.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh
> > > > Chawda <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules
> for
> > > the
> > > > > >> > affinity
> > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
> > > > > >> containers.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support
> > affinity
> > > > > >> > (locality)
> > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream,
> not
> > > for
> > > > > >> *any*
> > > > > >> > two
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general
> > case
> > > > and
> > > > > >> see
> > > > > >> > > how
> > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we
> > cannot
> > > > > type
> > > > > >> > cast
> > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must
> > be
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two
> > > > > operators
> > > > > >> > must
> > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the
> > second
> > > > one
> > > > > >> is a
> > > > > >> > > > much
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set
> of
> > > > rules,
> > > > > >> > there
> > > > > >> > > > must
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before
> > > > > >> requesting
> > > > > >> > > YARN
> > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > >> no
> > > > > >> > > point
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In
> case
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the
> rules
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some
> very
> > > > strict
> > > > > >> > rules
> > > > > >> > > > may
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example
> "on
> > > the
> > > > > >> same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM,
> Aniruddha
> > > > > >> Thombare <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having
> > > single
> > > > > >> set of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM,
> Sandeep
> > > > > >> Deshmukh <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > > > >> > thread/container
> > > > > >> > > > > local
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will
> > take
> > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error
> out
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > case.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it
> > > > > "Affinity
> > > > > >> > > Rules"
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our
> > > > > container
> > > > > >> > > > > allocation
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated
> > > > > together.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM,
> Chinmay
> > > > > >> Kolhatkar
> > > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> > > > > >> > anti-affinity,
> > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > per
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to
> > > > configure
> > > > > >> > > locality
> > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for
> anti-affinity
> > > &
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality
> for
> > > > > >> locality.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > > > >> > > thread/container
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will
> > > take
> > > > > >> affect?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such
> > confusion
> > > as
> > > > > >> above,
> > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of
> both
> > > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM
> > > affinity
> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > configured
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are
> > > called
> > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > "affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea
> > is
> > > to
> > > > > >> > allocate
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules",
> anti-affinity
> > is
> > > > > also
> > > > > >> > > > > configured.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both
> > > > > affinity
> > > > > >> > > > (similar
> > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for
> > > configuring
> > > > > >> > locality
> > > > > >> > > > > rules
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule
> > and
> > > > call
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> > > > > "affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi
> > > > Devendra
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
> > > > > >> application
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not
> have
> > it
> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > iteration
> > > > > >> > > > > 1.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still
> > think
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > object
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to
> > configure
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> > > > > >> > representation
> > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has
> > > some
> > > > > >> special
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> > > > > >> > > representation.)
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but
> > > > attribute
> > > > > >> > syntax
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > >> > > issues
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas
> > Weise <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best
> > approach
> > > -
> > > > if
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> > > works
> > > > > >> > > > > :-)
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate
> the
> > > > > >> containers
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application
> startup,
> > > > > >> especially
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM,
> Isha
> > > > > >> Arkatkar <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node
> > based
> > > > > >> requests
> > > > > >> > if
> > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach
> > > > altogether?
> > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > checked
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH
> > > > cluster.
> > > > > >> Yarn
> > > > > >> > > does
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the
> > > > > container
> > > > > >> > > > request.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks
> cluster
> > > to
> > > > > >> check
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in
> > > > > capacity
> > > > > >> > > > scheduler
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro
> > dependent
> > > > > issue.
> > > > > >> > > Please
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular
> > > > > expression
> > > > > >> > > sounds
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names
> > > > > internally
> > > > > >> > based
> > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings
> > for
> > > > > >> attribute
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > across
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later
> > > > iteration.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM,
> > > Thomas
> > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM,
> > Thomas
> > > > > Weise
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are
> > > taken
> > > > > away
> > > > > >> > from
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good
> style
> > > to
> > > > > >> claim
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to
> > look
> > > > at
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and
> > > > limitations.
> > > > > >> For
> > > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for
> it
> > to
> > > > > work
> > > > > >> > with
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just
> > recently
> > > > > added
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run
> > it
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > CDH
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM,
> Pramod
> > > > > >> Immaneni <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the
> containers
> > be
> > > > > >> > available
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not
> mandatory.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM,
> > Thomas
> > > > > >> Weise <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a
> minor
> > > > > >> variation
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total
> > > number
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process
> for
> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource
> > > > > preemption
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
> > > > > >> applications
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to
> support
> > > > > >> > anti-cluster
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21
> PM,
> > > > Isha
> > > > > >> > > Arkatkar
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> > > > > >> > Anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> > > > > anti-affinity
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons
> > > (such
> > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land
> on
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> > > > constraints(for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since
> they
> > > use
> > > > > same
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding
> > Anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
> > > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > yet
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your
> > > views
> > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity
> for
> > > > > physical
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to
> > > have
> > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > attribute
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And
> > an
> > > > > >> operator
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should
> not
> > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3
> > > > operators:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > > > > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > > > > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > > > > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1
> > > operator:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > > > >> > > "O3")));
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies
> > to
> > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator
> > name
> > > is
> > > > > >> part
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Thanks for the input Chinmay.
The last parameter true/false is for relaxing the constraint. If true, the
affinity rule would be relaxed if constraint cannot be satisfied. And if
false, application will keep requesting and waiting to launch containers
till all rules are satisfied.
Regarding the dag.setAffinity APIs. I can add those couple APIs in
LogicalPlan as a wrapper that internally can set the Dag Attributes.
Probably yes, that would be easier to use, to set affinity directly on dag
object.
Then there would 2 ways to set affinity rules:
1. Through DAG context attribute (Either through code or through
properties.xml)
2. By calling setAffinity on dag.
Thanks,
Isha
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface for
> specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not confusing
> users with two different configurations at the same time make a
> locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in the word at
> the moment.
>
> Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after some time
> based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream Locality
> API.
>
> @Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
> 1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
> 2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule> and then
> setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an API in
> LogicalPlan like following:
>
> dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>, false/true)
>
> dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) // Not sure
> what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is to remove
> locality for anti-affinity.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Chinmay.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators that are
> part
> > of the stream.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but not always
> > > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> > >
> > > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators that
> connect
> > to
> > > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> > >
> > > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to the
> > stream,
> > > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> > >
> > > Thks,
> > > Amol
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set that
> can
> > > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original
> > > intention
> > > > or not.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same thing?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator
> > attribute.
> > > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity
> can
> > be
> > > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream
> > locality,
> > > > it
> > > > >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> > > > independently.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local //
> This
> > > > >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to this
> > > stream
> > > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same
> node
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only
> > > relate
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> connected operators.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thks
> > > > >> Amol
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of
> this?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify
> operators
> > > > list
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate
> > both
> > > > >> these
> > > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in
> > > > >> validation
> > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or
> > > > affinity
> > > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright
> to
> > > not
> > > > >> > include
> > > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> > implementation
> > > > as
> > > > >> is.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > > Isha
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity
> > > between
> > > > >> more
> > > > >> > > than
> > > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as
> > > > multiple
> > > > >> > > rules
> > > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2
> > logical
> > > > >> > > operators?
> > > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the
> > > > affinity
> > > > >> > rule
> > > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common
> case
> > of
> > > > MxN
> > > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In
> > > other
> > > > >> cases
> > > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it
> is
> > > all
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling
> > > > affinity
> > > > >> > > rules
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for
> > > > specifying
> > > > >> > > > affinity
> > > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how
> > unifiers
> > > > >> should
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details
> > > follow:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in
> > Dag
> > > > >> > context.
> > > > >> > > > For
> > > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator
> > > pairs.
> > > > >> We
> > > > >> > can
> > > > >> > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected
> > operators
> > > > rand
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > console:
> > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> > OperatorPair(
> > > > >> > "rand",
> > > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand
> > > > operator
> > > > >> > with
> > > > >> > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru
> > > > >> operator,
> > > > >> > > give
> > > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity
> rules
> > > > here:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >>
> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily
> depends
> > > node
> > > > >> > > specific
> > > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > > >> > > To
> > > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an
> override
> > to
> > > > >> > > blacklist
> > > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is
> > to
> > > be
> > > > >> > > issued.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case
> of
> > > > >> > partitioned
> > > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > > rules?
> > > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
> > > > >> independent
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please
> > > suggest
> > > > >> what
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity
> > rules
> > > > in
> > > > >> > apex
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I
> > > > missed
> > > > >> > > > > something.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level
> affinity/anti-affinity
> > > > rules.
> > > > >> > For
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity
> among
> > > > >> operators
> > > > >> > > > > within
> > > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next
> > iteration
> > > to
> > > > >> > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality
> > > between 2
> > > > >> > > > operators
> > > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an
> > API
> > > > for
> > > > >> > > setting
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover
> > container
> > > > >> > affinity
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > well.
> > > > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level
> affinity
> > or
> > > > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected
> > > > operators.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are
> > honored
> > > by
> > > > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with
> > the
> > > > >> > approach
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity
> > > rules.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist
> approach
> > > for
> > > > >> CDH
> > > > >> > > > > distro,
> > > > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > >> > > honored
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to
> Yarn,
> > > but
> > > > no
> > > > >> > > > > containers
> > > > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair
> and
> > > > >> Capacity
> > > > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues
> > when
> > > > >> setting
> > > > >> > > up
> > > > >> > > > > CDH
> > > > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules
> with
> > > > these
> > > > >> > > things
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to
> > collaborate
> > > > on
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > > > > > Isha
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but
> > to
> > > > >> > operators
> > > > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In
> > > > general
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
> > > > >> > expressions.
> > > > >> > > > For
> > > > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2}
> and
> > > > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > >> > same
> > > > >> > > > > host.
> > > > >> > > > > >>> To
> > > > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be
> > > applied,
> > > > >> > > through
> > > > >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports
> that
> > > > >> operators
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may
> > apply
> > > > the
> > > > >> > same
> > > > >> > > > hack
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > > > rule
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does
> not
> > > > look
> > > > >> > like
> > > > >> > > a
> > > > >> > > > > good
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not
> > > directly
> > > > >> > > > connected
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides
> > > required
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same
> > container/JVM. X
> > > > >> may be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same
> > > container
> > > > >> as X,
> > > > >> > > so
> > > > >> > > > X
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X,
> > not
> > > to
> > > > >> any
> > > > >> > > > > specific
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > >> > JVM
> > > > >> > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other
> > > host/JVM
> > > > >> > leads
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> > > > LOCALITY_RACK
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > an
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The
> > value
> > > > >> would
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation.
> > The
> > > > same
> > > > >> > > could
> > > > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing
> > > > affinity
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> > > 2
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to
> > > > >> partitions
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose
> that
> > > > >> > operator X
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z
> > reads
> > > > from
> > > > >> > it.
> > > > >> > > Z
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may
> be
> > > > >> necessary
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > let
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity
> (deploying
> > > to
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > same
> > > > >> > > > > JVM)
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and
> > reads
> > > > >> from
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread
> > local
> > > > on
> > > > >> > NUMA
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not
> supported.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a
> > > special
> > > > >> case
> > > > >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL
> > > would
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But,
> > way
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > express
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of
> rules
> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > configuring
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is:
> > > > >> affinity of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since
> this
> > > is
> > > > >> only
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it
> makes
> > > > >> sense to
> > > > >> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only
> check
> > > for
> > > > >> > > REQUIRED
> > > > >> > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> > > > STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay
> > > Kolhatkar
> > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was
> > > mainly
> > > > >> > talking
> > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an
> > > affinity
> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > operators.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're
> > also,
> > > > in
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > way,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence
> > was
> > > > >> > straight
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration
> > comes
> > > > up,
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> > > anti-affinity.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both
> > (locality/affinity &
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's
> > affinity
> > > > >> rules.
> > > > >> > I
> > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion
> on
> > > how
> > > > >> both
> > > > >> > > can
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > > > >> ENTITIES
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED
> > > > >> O1, O2
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED
> > > > >> O3, O4
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED
> > > > O1,
> > > > >> O4
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED
> > > O2,
> > > > O4
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads
> is
> > > > >> another
> > > > >> > way
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted
> > > configuration
> > > > >> > > pattern,
> > > > >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for
> > > > distributed
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own
> configuration
> > > and
> > > > >> give
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important
> concept
> > > > might
> > > > >> > > > quickly
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > >> add
> > > > >> > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be
> > validated
> > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in
> logical
> > > plan
> > > > >> > might
> > > > >> > > > be a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha
> > Arkatkar <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of
> > > > having
> > > > >> > > single
> > > > >> > > > > set
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based
> > on
> > > > >> > Locality
> > > > >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But
> as
> > > > >> Sandeep
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> > > > >> > contradicting
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity'
> > among
> > > > non
> > > > >> > > stream
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by
> > > > >> requesting
> > > > >> > > node
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as
> > > > expected).
> > > > >> > But
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as
> > well
> > > > >> along
> > > > >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes
> > > from
> > > > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation
> > for
> > > > >> complex
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java
> object
> > > > >> > properties
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to
> satisfy
> > > > >> > > constraints:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available
> for
> > > > >> > allocating
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained.
> > > > >> Likewise, in
> > > > >> > > > case
> > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
> > > > >> application in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied.
> > For
> > > > >> relaxed
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the
> anti-affinity
> > > > rule.
> > > > >> > > Please
> > > > >> > > > > note
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting
> > > > rules.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh
> > > Chawda <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for
> > the
> > > > >> > affinity
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
> > > > >> containers.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support
> affinity
> > > > >> > (locality)
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not
> > for
> > > > >> *any*
> > > > >> > two
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general
> case
> > > and
> > > > >> see
> > > > >> > > how
> > > > >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we
> cannot
> > > > type
> > > > >> > cast
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must
> be
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > >> > same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two
> > > > operators
> > > > >> > must
> > > > >> > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the
> second
> > > one
> > > > >> is a
> > > > >> > > > much
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of
> > > rules,
> > > > >> > there
> > > > >> > > > must
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before
> > > > >> requesting
> > > > >> > > YARN
> > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then
> > there
> > > is
> > > > >> no
> > > > >> > > point
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case
> > it
> > > is
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules
> > can
> > > be
> > > > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very
> > > strict
> > > > >> > rules
> > > > >> > > > may
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on
> > the
> > > > >> same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha
> > > > >> Thombare <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having
> > single
> > > > >> set of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep
> > > > >> Deshmukh <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > > >> > thread/container
> > > > >> > > > > local
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will
> take
> > > > >> affect?
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > >> > > case.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it
> > > > "Affinity
> > > > >> > > Rules"
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our
> > > > container
> > > > >> > > > > allocation
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated
> > > > together.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay
> > > > >> Kolhatkar
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> > > > >> > anti-affinity,
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > per
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to
> > > configure
> > > > >> > > locality
> > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity
> > &
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for
> > > > >> locality.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > > >> > > thread/container
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will
> > take
> > > > >> affect?
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such
> confusion
> > as
> > > > >> above,
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> > > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM
> > affinity
> > > is
> > > > >> > > > configured
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are
> > called
> > > as
> > > > >> > > > "affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea
> is
> > to
> > > > >> > allocate
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity
> is
> > > > also
> > > > >> > > > > configured.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both
> > > > affinity
> > > > >> > > > (similar
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for
> > configuring
> > > > >> > locality
> > > > >> > > > > rules
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule
> and
> > > call
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > > > > "affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi
> > > Devendra
> > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
> > > > >> application
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have
> it
> > > in
> > > > >> > > iteration
> > > > >> > > > > 1.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still
> think
> > > > that
> > > > >> > Java
> > > > >> > > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to
> configure
> > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> > > > >> > representation
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has
> > some
> > > > >> special
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> > > > >> > > representation.)
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but
> > > attribute
> > > > >> > syntax
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> > > > compatibility
> > > > >> > > issues
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas
> Weise <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best
> approach
> > -
> > > if
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > > works
> > > > >> > > > > :-)
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the
> > > > >> containers
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup,
> > > > >> especially
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha
> > > > >> Arkatkar <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node
> based
> > > > >> requests
> > > > >> > if
> > > > >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach
> > > altogether?
> > > > I
> > > > >> > > checked
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH
> > > cluster.
> > > > >> Yarn
> > > > >> > > does
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the
> > > > container
> > > > >> > > > request.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster
> > to
> > > > >> check
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in
> > > > capacity
> > > > >> > > > scheduler
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro
> dependent
> > > > issue.
> > > > >> > > Please
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular
> > > > expression
> > > > >> > > sounds
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names
> > > > internally
> > > > >> > based
> > > > >> > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings
> for
> > > > >> attribute
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> > > > anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > across
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later
> > > iteration.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM,
> > Thomas
> > > > >> Weise <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM,
> Thomas
> > > > Weise
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are
> > taken
> > > > away
> > > > >> > from
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style
> > to
> > > > >> claim
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to
> look
> > > at
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and
> > > limitations.
> > > > >> For
> > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it
> to
> > > > work
> > > > >> > with
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just
> recently
> > > > added
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run
> it
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > >> > CDH
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod
> > > > >> Immaneni <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers
> be
> > > > >> > available
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM,
> Thomas
> > > > >> Weise <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor
> > > > >> variation
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total
> > number
> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for
> > the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource
> > > > preemption
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
> > > > >> applications
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
> > > > >> > anti-cluster
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM,
> > > Isha
> > > > >> > > Arkatkar
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> > > > >> > Anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> > > > anti-affinity
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons
> > (such
> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> > > constraints(for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they
> > use
> > > > same
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding
> Anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
> > > > >> anti-affinity
> > > > >> > yet
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your
> > views
> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for
> > > > physical
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to
> > have
> > > an
> > > > >> > > > attribute
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And
> an
> > > > >> operator
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not
> > be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3
> > > operators:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > > > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > > > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > > > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1
> > operator:
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > > >> > > "O3")));
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1
> should
> > > not
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies
> to
> > > all
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator
> name
> > is
> > > > >> part
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Chinmay Kolhatkar <ch...@apache.org>.
I agree with Pramod. We should probably have single interface for
specifying both if at all possible. This is in interest of not confusing
users with two different configurations at the same time make a
locality/affinity API to apear similar to what is out there in the word at
the moment.
Though it might be early to deprecate stream locality, but after some time
based on user's experience we should consider deprecating Stream Locality
API.
@Isha, nice APIs. Questions/suggestions regarding this:
1. What does the "false" signify for AffinityRule constructor.
2. This is a suggestion. Instead of having a List<AffinityRule> and then
setting this object to attribute of the DAG, should we have an API in
LogicalPlan like following:
dag.setAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, <locality_type>, false/true)
dag.setAntiAffinity(<operator1>, <operator2>, false/true) // Not sure
what false/true mean, added for completion. But the point here is to remove
locality for anti-affinity.
Thanks,
Chinmay.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators that are part
> of the stream.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> > These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but not always
> > same. For example, how do I specify the following
> >
> > This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators that connect
> to
> > it today (or in future) to be container local.
> >
> > With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to the
> stream,
> > they automatically inherit stream locality.
> >
> > Thks,
> > Amol
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set that can
> > > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original
> > intention
> > > or not.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same thing?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator
> attribute.
> > > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity can
> be
> > > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream
> locality,
> > > it
> > > >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> > > independently.
> > > >>
> > > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local // This
> > > >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to this
> > stream
> > > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same node
> > > >>
> > > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only
> > relate
> > > >> to
> > > >> connected operators.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thks
> > > >> Amol
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators
> > > list
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate
> both
> > > >> these
> > > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in
> > > >> validation
> > > >> > > phase.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or
> > > affinity
> > > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to
> > not
> > > >> > include
> > > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current
> implementation
> > > as
> > > >> is.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> > > Isha
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Isha,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity
> > between
> > > >> more
> > > >> > > than
> > > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as
> > > multiple
> > > >> > > rules
> > > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2
> logical
> > > >> > > operators?
> > > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the
> > > affinity
> > > >> > rule
> > > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case
> of
> > > MxN
> > > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In
> > other
> > > >> cases
> > > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is
> > all
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > important to have it.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling
> > > affinity
> > > >> > > rules
> > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > Apex:
> > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for
> > > specifying
> > > >> > > > affinity
> > > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how
> unifiers
> > > >> should
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details
> > follow:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in
> Dag
> > > >> > context.
> > > >> > > > For
> > > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator
> > pairs.
> > > >> We
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > > add
> > > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected
> operators
> > > rand
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > console:
> > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new
> OperatorPair(
> > > >> > "rand",
> > > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand
> > > operator
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > > all
> > > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > >> > > > "rand",
> > > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru
> > > >> operator,
> > > >> > > give
> > > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > > >> OperatorPair(
> > > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules
> > > here:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends
> > node
> > > >> > > specific
> > > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > >> > > To
> > > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override
> to
> > > >> > > blacklist
> > > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is
> to
> > be
> > > >> > > issued.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of
> > > >> > partitioned
> > > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> > > >> anti-affinity
> > > >> > > > rules?
> > > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
> > > >> independent
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please
> > suggest
> > > >> what
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > Isha
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity
> rules
> > > in
> > > >> > apex
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I
> > > missed
> > > >> > > > > something.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity
> > > rules.
> > > >> > For
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among
> > > >> operators
> > > >> > > > > within
> > > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next
> iteration
> > to
> > > >> > > support
> > > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > >> > > > > policy,
> > > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality
> > between 2
> > > >> > > > operators
> > > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an
> API
> > > for
> > > >> > > setting
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover
> container
> > > >> > affinity
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > > well.
> > > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity
> or
> > > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected
> > > operators.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are
> honored
> > by
> > > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with
> the
> > > >> > approach
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity
> > rules.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach
> > for
> > > >> CDH
> > > >> > > > > distro,
> > > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests
> are
> > > not
> > > >> > > honored
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn,
> > but
> > > no
> > > >> > > > > containers
> > > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and
> > > >> Capacity
> > > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues
> when
> > > >> setting
> > > >> > > up
> > > >> > > > > CDH
> > > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with
> > > these
> > > >> > > things
> > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to
> collaborate
> > > on
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > >> > > > > > Isha
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but
> to
> > > >> > operators
> > > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In
> > > general
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
> > > >> > expressions.
> > > >> > > > For
> > > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
> > > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators
> on
> > > the
> > > >> > same
> > > >> > > > > host.
> > > >> > > > > >>> To
> > > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be
> > applied,
> > > >> > > through
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that
> > > >> operators
> > > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may
> apply
> > > the
> > > >> > same
> > > >> > > > hack
> > > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > >> > > > > rule
> > > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not
> > > look
> > > >> > like
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > > > good
> > > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not
> > directly
> > > >> > > > connected
> > > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides
> > required
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same
> container/JVM. X
> > > >> may be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same
> > container
> > > >> as X,
> > > >> > > so
> > > >> > > > X
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X,
> not
> > to
> > > >> any
> > > >> > > > > specific
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside
> the
> > > same
> > > >> > JVM
> > > >> > > > will
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other
> > host/JVM
> > > >> > leads
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> > > LOCALITY_RACK
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > an
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The
> value
> > > >> would
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > an
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation.
> The
> > > same
> > > >> > > could
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing
> > > affinity
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > 2
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to
> > > >> partitions
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that
> > > >> > operator X
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z
> reads
> > > from
> > > >> > it.
> > > >> > > Z
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be
> > > >> necessary
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > let
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying
> > to
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > same
> > > >> > > > > JVM)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and
> reads
> > > >> from
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread
> local
> > > on
> > > >> > NUMA
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a
> > special
> > > >> case
> > > >> > > of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL
> > would
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But,
> way
> > > to
> > > >> > > express
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules
> > for
> > > >> > > > > configuring
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is:
> > > >> affinity of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this
> > is
> > > >> only
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes
> > > >> sense to
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check
> > for
> > > >> > > REQUIRED
> > > >> > > > or
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> > > STRICT/RELAXED
> > > >> or
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay
> > Kolhatkar
> > > <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was
> > mainly
> > > >> > talking
> > > >> > > > > about
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an
> > affinity
> > > of
> > > >> > > > > operators.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're
> also,
> > > in
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > way,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence
> was
> > > >> > straight
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration
> comes
> > > up,
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > > might
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> > anti-affinity.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both
> (locality/affinity &
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> > > >> > > configuration
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's
> affinity
> > > >> rules.
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on
> > how
> > > >> both
> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > > >> ENTITIES
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED
> > > >> O1, O2
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED
> > > >> O3, O4
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED
> > > O1,
> > > >> O4
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED
> > O2,
> > > O4
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is
> > > >> another
> > > >> > way
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted
> > configuration
> > > >> > > pattern,
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for
> > > distributed
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration
> > and
> > > >> give
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept
> > > might
> > > >> > > > quickly
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would
> need
> > > to
> > > >> add
> > > >> > > > some
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be
> validated
> > > at
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical
> > plan
> > > >> > might
> > > >> > > > be a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha
> Arkatkar <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of
> > > having
> > > >> > > single
> > > >> > > > > set
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based
> on
> > > >> > Locality
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as
> > > >> Sandeep
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> > > >> > contradicting
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity'
> among
> > > non
> > > >> > > stream
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by
> > > >> requesting
> > > >> > > node
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as
> > > expected).
> > > >> > But
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as
> well
> > > >> along
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes
> > from
> > > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation
> for
> > > >> complex
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object
> > > >> > properties
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
> > > >> > > constraints:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for
> > > >> > allocating
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained.
> > > >> Likewise, in
> > > >> > > > case
> > > >> > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
> > > >> application in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied.
> For
> > > >> relaxed
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity
> > > rule.
> > > >> > > Please
> > > >> > > > > note
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting
> > > rules.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh
> > Chawda <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for
> the
> > > >> > affinity
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
> > > >> containers.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity
> > > >> > (locality)
> > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not
> for
> > > >> *any*
> > > >> > two
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case
> > and
> > > >> see
> > > >> > > how
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot
> > > type
> > > >> > cast
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be
> on
> > > the
> > > >> > same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two
> > > operators
> > > >> > must
> > > >> > > > not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second
> > one
> > > >> is a
> > > >> > > > much
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of
> > rules,
> > > >> > there
> > > >> > > > must
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before
> > > >> requesting
> > > >> > > YARN
> > > >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then
> there
> > is
> > > >> no
> > > >> > > point
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case
> it
> > is
> > > >> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules
> can
> > be
> > > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very
> > strict
> > > >> > rules
> > > >> > > > may
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on
> the
> > > >> same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha
> > > >> Thombare <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having
> single
> > > >> set of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep
> > > >> Deshmukh <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > >> > thread/container
> > > >> > > > > local
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> > > >> affect?
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out
> in
> > > this
> > > >> > > case.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it
> > > "Affinity
> > > >> > > Rules"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our
> > > container
> > > >> > > > > allocation
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated
> > > together.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay
> > > >> Kolhatkar
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> > > >> > anti-affinity,
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > per
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to
> > configure
> > > >> > > locality
> > > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity
> &
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for
> > > >> locality.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > >> > > thread/container
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will
> take
> > > >> affect?
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion
> as
> > > >> above,
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> > > >> > > anti-affinity
> > > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM
> affinity
> > is
> > > >> > > > configured
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are
> called
> > as
> > > >> > > > "affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is
> to
> > > >> > allocate
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is
> > > also
> > > >> > > > > configured.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both
> > > affinity
> > > >> > > > (similar
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for
> configuring
> > > >> > locality
> > > >> > > > > rules
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and
> > call
> > > >> it
> > > >> > > > > "affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi
> > Devendra
> > > <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
> > > >> application
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it
> > in
> > > >> > > iteration
> > > >> > > > > 1.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think
> > > that
> > > >> > Java
> > > >> > > > > object
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure
> > > from
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> > > >> > representation
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has
> some
> > > >> special
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> > > >> > > representation.)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but
> > attribute
> > > >> > syntax
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> > > compatibility
> > > >> > > issues
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach
> -
> > if
> > > >> it
> > > >> > > works
> > > >> > > > > :-)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the
> > > >> containers
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup,
> > > >> especially
> > > >> > > for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha
> > > >> Arkatkar <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based
> > > >> requests
> > > >> > if
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach
> > altogether?
> > > I
> > > >> > > checked
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH
> > cluster.
> > > >> Yarn
> > > >> > > does
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the
> > > container
> > > >> > > > request.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster
> to
> > > >> check
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in
> > > capacity
> > > >> > > > scheduler
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent
> > > issue.
> > > >> > > Please
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular
> > > expression
> > > >> > > sounds
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names
> > > internally
> > > >> > based
> > > >> > > > on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for
> > > >> attribute
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> > > anti-affinity
> > > >> > > across
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later
> > iteration.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM,
> Thomas
> > > >> Weise <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas
> > > Weise
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are
> taken
> > > away
> > > >> > from
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style
> to
> > > >> claim
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look
> > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and
> > limitations.
> > > >> For
> > > >> > > > > example,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to
> > > work
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently
> > > added
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it
> on
> > > the
> > > >> > CDH
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod
> > > >> Immaneni <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be
> > > >> > available
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas
> > > >> Weise <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor
> > > >> variation
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total
> number
> > > of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for
> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource
> > > preemption
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
> > > >> applications
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
> > > >> > anti-cluster
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM,
> > Isha
> > > >> > > Arkatkar
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> > > >> > Anti-affinity
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> > > anti-affinity
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons
> (such
> > as
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on
> the
> > > same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> > constraints(for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they
> use
> > > same
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
> > > >> anti-affinity
> > > >> > yet
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your
> views
> > on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for
> > > physical
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to
> have
> > an
> > > >> > > > attribute
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an
> > > >> operator
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not
> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3
> > operators:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1
> operator:
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > >> > > "O3")));
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should
> > not
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to
> > all
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name
> is
> > > >> part
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
You could specify it by specifying the names of all operators that are part
of the stream.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but not always
> same. For example, how do I specify the following
>
> This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators that connect to
> it today (or in future) to be container local.
>
> With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to the stream,
> they automatically inherit stream locality.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set that can
> > consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original
> intention
> > or not.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same thing?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator attribute.
> > >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity can be
> > >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream locality,
> > it
> > >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> > independently.
> > >>
> > >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local // This
> > >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to this
> stream
> > >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same node
> > >>
> > >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only
> relate
> > >> to
> > >> connected operators.
> > >>
> > >> Thks
> > >> Amol
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > pramod@datatorrent.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Pramod,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators
> > list
> > >> for
> > >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both
> > >> these
> > >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in
> > >> validation
> > >> > > phase.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or
> > affinity
> > >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to
> not
> > >> > include
> > >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation
> > as
> > >> is.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> > > Isha
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Isha,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity
> between
> > >> more
> > >> > > than
> > >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as
> > multiple
> > >> > > rules
> > >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical
> > >> > > operators?
> > >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the
> > affinity
> > >> > rule
> > >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of
> > MxN
> > >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In
> other
> > >> cases
> > >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is
> all
> > >> the
> > >> > > > important to have it.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Hi all,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling
> > affinity
> > >> > > rules
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > Apex:
> > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for
> > specifying
> > >> > > > affinity
> > >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers
> > >> should
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details
> follow:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag
> > >> > context.
> > >> > > > For
> > >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator
> pairs.
> > >> We
> > >> > can
> > >> > > > add
> > >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators
> > rand
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > console:
> > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > >> > "rand",
> > >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand
> > operator
> > >> > with
> > >> > > > all
> > >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > >> OperatorPair(
> > >> > > > "rand",
> > >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru
> > >> operator,
> > >> > > give
> > >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> > >> OperatorPair(
> > >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules
> > here:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends
> node
> > >> > > specific
> > >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > >> > > To
> > >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to
> > >> > > blacklist
> > >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to
> be
> > >> > > issued.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of
> > >> > partitioned
> > >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> > >> anti-affinity
> > >> > > > rules?
> > >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
> > >> independent
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please
> suggest
> > >> what
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > Isha
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules
> > in
> > >> > apex
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I
> > missed
> > >> > > > > something.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity
> > rules.
> > >> > For
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among
> > >> operators
> > >> > > > > within
> > >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration
> to
> > >> > > support
> > >> > > > > > across applications.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> > >> STRICT/RELAXED
> > >> > > > > policy,
> > >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality
> between 2
> > >> > > > operators
> > >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API
> > for
> > >> > > setting
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container
> > >> > affinity
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > > well.
> > >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> > >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected
> > operators.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored
> by
> > >> > > > > HortonWorks
> > >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the
> > >> > approach
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity
> rules.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach
> for
> > >> CDH
> > >> > > > > distro,
> > >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are
> > not
> > >> > > honored
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn,
> but
> > no
> > >> > > > > containers
> > >> > > > > > are allocated.
> > >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and
> > >> Capacity
> > >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when
> > >> setting
> > >> > > up
> > >> > > > > CDH
> > >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with
> > these
> > >> > > things
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate
> > on
> > >> > this
> > >> > > > > > effort! :)
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thanks!
> > >> > > > > > Isha
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to
> > >> > operators
> > >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In
> > general
> > >> > this
> > >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
> > >> > expressions.
> > >> > > > For
> > >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
> > >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on
> > the
> > >> > same
> > >> > > > > host.
> > >> > > > > >>> To
> > >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be
> applied,
> > >> > > through
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that
> > >> operators
> > >> > > > > >>>> designer
> > >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply
> > the
> > >> > same
> > >> > > > hack
> > >> > > > > >>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> > >> > > anti-affinity
> > >> > > > > rule
> > >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not
> > look
> > >> > like
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > good
> > >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not
> directly
> > >> > > > connected
> > >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides
> required
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X
> > >> may be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same
> container
> > >> as X,
> > >> > > so
> > >> > > > X
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not
> to
> > >> any
> > >> > > > > specific
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the
> > same
> > >> > JVM
> > >> > > > will
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other
> host/JVM
> > >> > leads
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> > LOCALITY_RACK
> > >> for
> > >> > > an
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value
> > >> would
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > an
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The
> > same
> > >> > > could
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing
> > affinity
> > >> > for
> > >> > > 2
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to
> > >> partitions
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that
> > >> > operator X
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads
> > from
> > >> > it.
> > >> > > Z
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be
> > >> necessary
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > let
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying
> to
> > >> the
> > >> > > same
> > >> > > > > JVM)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads
> > >> from
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local
> > on
> > >> > NUMA
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a
> special
> > >> case
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL
> would
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way
> > to
> > >> > > express
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules
> for
> > >> > > > > configuring
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is:
> > >> affinity of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this
> is
> > >> only
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes
> > >> sense to
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check
> for
> > >> > > REQUIRED
> > >> > > > or
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> > STRICT/RELAXED
> > >> or
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay
> Kolhatkar
> > <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was
> mainly
> > >> > talking
> > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an
> affinity
> > of
> > >> > > > > operators.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also,
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> > > way,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was
> > >> > straight
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes
> > up,
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > > might
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality &
> anti-affinity.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> > >> > > configuration
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity
> > >> rules.
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > > think
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on
> how
> > >> both
> > >> > > can
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> > >> ENTITIES
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED
> > >> O1, O2
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED
> > >> O3, O4
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED
> > O1,
> > >> O4
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED
> O2,
> > O4
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is
> > >> another
> > >> > way
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted
> configuration
> > >> > > pattern,
> > >> > > > we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for
> > distributed
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration
> and
> > >> give
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept
> > might
> > >> > > > quickly
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need
> > to
> > >> add
> > >> > > > some
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated
> > at
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical
> plan
> > >> > might
> > >> > > > be a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of
> > having
> > >> > > single
> > >> > > > > set
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on
> > >> > Locality
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as
> > >> Sandeep
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> > >> > contradicting
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among
> > non
> > >> > > stream
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by
> > >> requesting
> > >> > > node
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as
> > expected).
> > >> > But
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well
> > >> along
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes
> from
> > >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for
> > >> complex
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object
> > >> > properties
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
> > >> > > constraints:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for
> > >> > allocating
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained.
> > >> Likewise, in
> > >> > > > case
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
> > >> application in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For
> > >> relaxed
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity
> > rule.
> > >> > > Please
> > >> > > > > note
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting
> > rules.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh
> Chawda <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the
> > >> > affinity
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
> > >> containers.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity
> > >> > (locality)
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for
> > >> *any*
> > >> > two
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case
> and
> > >> see
> > >> > > how
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot
> > type
> > >> > cast
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on
> > the
> > >> > same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two
> > operators
> > >> > must
> > >> > > > not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second
> one
> > >> is a
> > >> > > > much
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of
> rules,
> > >> > there
> > >> > > > must
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before
> > >> requesting
> > >> > > YARN
> > >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there
> is
> > >> no
> > >> > > point
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it
> is
> > >> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can
> be
> > >> > > > "relaxed"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very
> strict
> > >> > rules
> > >> > > > may
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the
> > >> same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha
> > >> Thombare <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single
> > >> set of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep
> > >> Deshmukh <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > >> > thread/container
> > >> > > > > local
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> > >> affect?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in
> > this
> > >> > > case.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it
> > "Affinity
> > >> > > Rules"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our
> > container
> > >> > > > > allocation
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated
> > together.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay
> > >> Kolhatkar
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> > >> > anti-affinity,
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > per
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to
> configure
> > >> > > locality
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for
> > >> locality.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > >> > > thread/container
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> > >> affect?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as
> > >> above,
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> > >> > > anti-affinity
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity
> is
> > >> > > > configured
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called
> as
> > >> > > > "affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to
> > >> > allocate
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is
> > also
> > >> > > > > configured.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both
> > affinity
> > >> > > > (similar
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring
> > >> > locality
> > >> > > > > rules
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and
> call
> > >> it
> > >> > > > > "affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi
> Devendra
> > <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
> > >> application
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it
> in
> > >> > > iteration
> > >> > > > > 1.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think
> > that
> > >> > Java
> > >> > > > > object
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure
> > from
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> > >> > representation
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some
> > >> special
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> > >> > > representation.)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but
> attribute
> > >> > syntax
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> > compatibility
> > >> > > issues
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach -
> if
> > >> it
> > >> > > works
> > >> > > > > :-)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the
> > >> containers
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup,
> > >> especially
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha
> > >> Arkatkar <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based
> > >> requests
> > >> > if
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach
> altogether?
> > I
> > >> > > checked
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH
> cluster.
> > >> Yarn
> > >> > > does
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the
> > container
> > >> > > > request.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to
> > >> check
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in
> > capacity
> > >> > > > scheduler
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent
> > issue.
> > >> > > Please
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular
> > expression
> > >> > > sounds
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names
> > internally
> > >> > based
> > >> > > > on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for
> > >> attribute
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> > anti-affinity
> > >> > > across
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later
> iteration.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas
> > >> Weise <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas
> > Weise
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken
> > away
> > >> > from
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to
> > >> claim
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look
> at
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and
> limitations.
> > >> For
> > >> > > > > example,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to
> > work
> > >> > with
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently
> > added
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on
> > the
> > >> > CDH
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod
> > >> Immaneni <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be
> > >> > available
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas
> > >> Weise <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor
> > >> variation
> > >> > of
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number
> > of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource
> > preemption
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
> > >> applications
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
> > >> > anti-cluster
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM,
> Isha
> > >> > > Arkatkar
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> > >> > Anti-affinity
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> > anti-affinity
> > >> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such
> as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the
> > same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific
> constraints(for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use
> > same
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
> > >> anti-affinity
> > >> > yet
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views
> on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for
> > physical
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have
> an
> > >> > > > attribute
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an
> > >> operator
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3
> operators:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> > >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > >> > > "O3")));
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should
> not
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to
> all
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is
> > >> part
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>.
These are two diff ways of specifying something similar, but not always
same. For example, how do I specify the following
This stream has way to high throughput. Force all operators that connect to
it today (or in future) to be container local.
With stream locality I get that as operator ports are added to the stream,
they automatically inherit stream locality.
Thks,
Amol
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set that can
> consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original intention
> or not.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same thing?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator attribute.
> >> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity can be
> >> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream locality,
> it
> >> may be better to let user say the two following statements
> independently.
> >>
> >> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local // This
> >> statement is independent of future additions of operators to this stream
> >> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same node
> >>
> >> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only relate
> >> to
> >> connected operators.
> >>
> >> Thks
> >> Amol
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Pramod,
> >> > >
> >> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators
> list
> >> for
> >> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both
> >> these
> >> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in
> >> validation
> >> > > phase.
> >> > >
> >> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or
> affinity
> >> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to not
> >> > include
> >> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation
> as
> >> is.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > Isha
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> >> pramod@datatorrent.com
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Isha,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between
> >> more
> >> > > than
> >> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as
> multiple
> >> > > rules
> >> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical
> >> > > operators?
> >> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the
> affinity
> >> > rule
> >> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of
> MxN
> >> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other
> >> cases
> >> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all
> >> the
> >> > > > important to have it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling
> affinity
> >> > > rules
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > Apex:
> >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for
> specifying
> >> > > > affinity
> >> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers
> >> should
> >> > be
> >> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag
> >> > context.
> >> > > > For
> >> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs.
> >> We
> >> > can
> >> > > > add
> >> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> >> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators
> rand
> >> > and
> >> > > > > console:
> >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> >> > "rand",
> >> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand
> operator
> >> > with
> >> > > > all
> >> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> >> OperatorPair(
> >> > > > "rand",
> >> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru
> >> operator,
> >> > > give
> >> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> >> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> >> OperatorPair(
> >> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> >> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules
> here:
> >> > > > >
> >> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node
> >> > > specific
> >> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> >> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> >> > > To
> >> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to
> >> > > blacklist
> >> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be
> >> > > issued.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of
> >> > partitioned
> >> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> >> anti-affinity
> >> > > > rules?
> >> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
> >> independent
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest
> >> what
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Isha
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi folks,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules
> in
> >> > apex
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I
> missed
> >> > > > > something.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity
> rules.
> >> > For
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among
> >> operators
> >> > > > > within
> >> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to
> >> > > support
> >> > > > > > across applications.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> >> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> >> STRICT/RELAXED
> >> > > > > policy,
> >> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> >> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2
> >> > > > operators
> >> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API
> for
> >> > > setting
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container
> >> > affinity
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > > well.
> >> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> >> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected
> operators.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
> >> > > > > HortonWorks
> >> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the
> >> > approach
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for
> >> CDH
> >> > > > > distro,
> >> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> >> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are
> not
> >> > > honored
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but
> no
> >> > > > > containers
> >> > > > > > are allocated.
> >> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and
> >> Capacity
> >> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when
> >> setting
> >> > > up
> >> > > > > CDH
> >> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with
> these
> >> > > things
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate
> on
> >> > this
> >> > > > > > effort! :)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > > > Isha
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to
> >> > operators
> >> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In
> general
> >> > this
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
> >> > expressions.
> >> > > > For
> >> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
> >> > > {!app2.op1}".
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > > host.
> >> > > > > >>> To
> >> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied,
> >> > > through
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that
> >> operators
> >> > > > > >>>> designer
> >> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > hack
> >> > > > > >>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> >> > > anti-affinity
> >> > > > > rule
> >> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not
> look
> >> > like
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > good
> >> > > > > >>>> option :).
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly
> >> > > > connected
> >> > > > > >>>>> by a
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X
> >> may be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container
> >> as X,
> >> > > so
> >> > > > X
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to
> >> any
> >> > > > > specific
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the
> same
> >> > JVM
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM
> >> > leads
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and
> LOCALITY_RACK
> >> for
> >> > > an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value
> >> would
> >> > be
> >> > > > an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The
> same
> >> > > could
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing
> affinity
> >> > for
> >> > > 2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to
> >> partitions
> >> > of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that
> >> > operator X
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads
> from
> >> > it.
> >> > > Z
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be
> >> necessary
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > let
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to
> >> the
> >> > > same
> >> > > > > JVM)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads
> >> from
> >> > the
> >> > > > > same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local
> on
> >> > NUMA
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special
> >> case
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would
> >> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way
> to
> >> > > express
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
> >> > > > > configuring
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is:
> >> affinity of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is
> >> only
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes
> >> sense to
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for
> >> > > REQUIRED
> >> > > > or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies
> STRICT/RELAXED
> >> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar
> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly
> >> > talking
> >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity
> of
> >> > > > > operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also,
> in
> >> a
> >> > > way,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was
> >> > straight
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes
> up,
> >> > one
> >> > > > > might
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> >> > > configuration
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity
> >> rules.
> >> > I
> >> > > > > think
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how
> >> both
> >> > > can
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> >> ENTITIES
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED
> >> O1, O2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED
> >> O3, O4
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED
> O1,
> >> O4
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2,
> O4
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is
> >> another
> >> > way
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration
> >> > > pattern,
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for
> distributed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and
> >> give
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept
> might
> >> > > > quickly
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need
> to
> >> add
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated
> at
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan
> >> > might
> >> > > > be a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of
> having
> >> > > single
> >> > > > > set
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on
> >> > Locality
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as
> >> Sandeep
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> >> > contradicting
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among
> non
> >> > > stream
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by
> >> requesting
> >> > > node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as
> expected).
> >> > But
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well
> >> along
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
> >> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for
> >> complex
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object
> >> > properties
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
> >> > > constraints:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for
> >> > allocating
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained.
> >> Likewise, in
> >> > > > case
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
> >> application in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For
> >> relaxed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity
> rule.
> >> > > Please
> >> > > > > note
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting
> rules.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the
> >> > affinity
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
> >> containers.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity
> >> > (locality)
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for
> >> *any*
> >> > two
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and
> >> see
> >> > > how
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot
> type
> >> > cast
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two
> operators
> >> > must
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one
> >> is a
> >> > > > much
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules,
> >> > there
> >> > > > must
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before
> >> requesting
> >> > > YARN
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is
> >> no
> >> > > point
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is
> >> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be
> >> > > > "relaxed"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict
> >> > rules
> >> > > > may
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the
> >> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha
> >> Thombare <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single
> >> set of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep
> >> Deshmukh <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> >> > thread/container
> >> > > > > local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> >> affect?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in
> this
> >> > > case.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it
> "Affinity
> >> > > Rules"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our
> container
> >> > > > > allocation
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated
> together.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay
> >> Kolhatkar
> >> > <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> >> > anti-affinity,
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > per
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure
> >> > > locality
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for
> >> locality.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> >> > > thread/container
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> >> affect?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as
> >> above,
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> >> > > anti-affinity
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is
> >> > > > configured
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as
> >> > > > "affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to
> >> > allocate
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is
> also
> >> > > > > configured.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both
> affinity
> >> > > > (similar
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring
> >> > locality
> >> > > > > rules
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call
> >> it
> >> > > > > "affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra
> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
> >> application
> >> > is
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in
> >> > > iteration
> >> > > > > 1.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think
> that
> >> > Java
> >> > > > > object
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure
> from
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> >> > representation
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some
> >> special
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> >> > > representation.)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute
> >> > syntax
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward
> compatibility
> >> > > issues
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if
> >> it
> >> > > works
> >> > > > > :-)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the
> >> containers
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup,
> >> especially
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha
> >> Arkatkar <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based
> >> requests
> >> > if
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether?
> I
> >> > > checked
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster.
> >> Yarn
> >> > > does
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the
> container
> >> > > > request.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to
> >> check
> >> > the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in
> capacity
> >> > > > scheduler
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent
> issue.
> >> > > Please
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular
> expression
> >> > > sounds
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names
> internally
> >> > based
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for
> >> attribute
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement
> anti-affinity
> >> > > across
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas
> >> Weise <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas
> Weise
> >> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken
> away
> >> > from
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to
> >> claim
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at
> >> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations.
> >> For
> >> > > > > example,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to
> work
> >> > with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently
> added
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on
> the
> >> > CDH
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod
> >> Immaneni <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be
> >> > available
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas
> >> Weise <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor
> >> variation
> >> > of
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number
> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource
> preemption
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
> >> applications
> >> > and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
> >> > anti-cluster
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha
> >> > > Arkatkar
> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> >> > Anti-affinity
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using
> anti-affinity
> >> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the
> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use
> same
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
> >> anti-affinity
> >> > yet
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for
> physical
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an
> >> > > > attribute
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an
> >> operator
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> >> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> >> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
> >> dag.addOperator("O3",
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> >> > > "O3")));
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not
> >> be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is
> >> part
> >> > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
To explain the affinity support below seems to be a super-set that can
consume the stream locality setting whether that was the original intention
or not.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same thing?
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
>> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator attribute.
>> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity can be
>> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream locality, it
>> may be better to let user say the two following statements independently.
>>
>> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local // This
>> statement is independent of future additions of operators to this stream
>> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same node
>>
>> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only relate
>> to
>> connected operators.
>>
>> Thks
>> Amol
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Pramod,
>> > >
>> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators list
>> for
>> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both
>> these
>> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in
>> validation
>> > > phase.
>> > >
>> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or affinity
>> > > rules and throw validation exception.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to not
>> > include
>> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation as
>> is.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > Isha
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Isha,
>> > > >
>> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between
>> more
>> > > than
>> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as multiple
>> > > rules
>> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical
>> > > operators?
>> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the affinity
>> > rule
>> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of MxN
>> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other
>> cases
>> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all
>> the
>> > > > important to have it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling affinity
>> > > rules
>> > > > in
>> > > > > Apex:
>> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for specifying
>> > > > affinity
>> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers
>> should
>> > be
>> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag
>> > context.
>> > > > For
>> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs.
>> We
>> > can
>> > > > add
>> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Here is sample usage:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
>> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators rand
>> > and
>> > > > > console:
>> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
>> > "rand",
>> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
>> > > > >
>> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand operator
>> > with
>> > > > all
>> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
>> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
>> OperatorPair(
>> > > > "rand",
>> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
>> > > > >
>> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru
>> operator,
>> > > give
>> > > > > same operator name in pair:
>> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
>> OperatorPair(
>> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
>> > > > >
>> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
>> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules here:
>> > > > >
>> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node
>> > > specific
>> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
>> > StreamingAppMasterService.
>> > > To
>> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to
>> > > blacklist
>> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be
>> > > issued.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of
>> > partitioned
>> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
>> anti-affinity
>> > > > rules?
>> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
>> independent
>> > > and
>> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest
>> what
>> > > > would
>> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Isha
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi folks,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in
>> > apex
>> > > as
>> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed
>> > > > > something.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > * For configuration:*
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules.
>> > For
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among
>> operators
>> > > > > within
>> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to
>> > > support
>> > > > > > across applications.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
>> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
>> STRICT/RELAXED
>> > > > > policy,
>> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
>> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2
>> > > > operators
>> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for
>> > > setting
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container
>> > affinity
>> > > as
>> > > > > > well.
>> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
>> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
>> > > > > HortonWorks
>> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the
>> > approach
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for
>> CDH
>> > > > > distro,
>> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
>> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not
>> > > honored
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no
>> > > > > containers
>> > > > > > are allocated.
>> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and
>> Capacity
>> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when
>> setting
>> > > up
>> > > > > CDH
>> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these
>> > > things
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on
>> > this
>> > > > > > effort! :)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks!
>> > > > > > Isha
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to
>> > operators
>> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general
>> > this
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
>> > expressions.
>> > > > For
>> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
>> > > {!app2.op1}".
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the
>> > same
>> > > > > host.
>> > > > > >>> To
>> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied,
>> > > through
>> > > > a
>> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that
>> operators
>> > > > > >>>> designer
>> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the
>> > same
>> > > > hack
>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
>> > > anti-affinity
>> > > > > rule
>> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look
>> > like
>> > > a
>> > > > > good
>> > > > > >>>> option :).
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly
>> > > > connected
>> > > > > >>>>> by a
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
>> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>> >
>> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
>> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
>> > > > > >>>>>>> The
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X
>> may be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container
>> as X,
>> > > so
>> > > > X
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to
>> any
>> > > > > specific
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same
>> > JVM
>> > > > will
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM
>> > leads
>> > > to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK
>> for
>> > > an
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value
>> would
>> > be
>> > > > an
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same
>> > > could
>> > > > be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity
>> > for
>> > > 2
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to
>> partitions
>> > of
>> > > > the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that
>> > operator X
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from
>> > it.
>> > > Z
>> > > > is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be
>> necessary
>> > > to
>> > > > > let
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to
>> the
>> > > same
>> > > > > JVM)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads
>> from
>> > the
>> > > > > same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on
>> > NUMA
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special
>> case
>> > > of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would
>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to
>> > > express
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
>> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
>> > > > > configuring
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is:
>> affinity of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is
>> only
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes
>> sense to
>> > > > have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for
>> > > REQUIRED
>> > > > or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED
>> or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly
>> > talking
>> > > > > about
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of
>> > > > > operators.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in
>> a
>> > > way,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was
>> > straight
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up,
>> > one
>> > > > > might
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
>> > > configuration
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity
>> rules.
>> > I
>> > > > > think
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how
>> both
>> > > can
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
>> ENTITIES
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED
>> O1, O2
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED
>> O3, O4
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1,
>> O4
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is
>> another
>> > way
>> > > > of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration
>> > > pattern,
>> > > > we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and
>> give
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might
>> > > > quickly
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to
>> add
>> > > > some
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan
>> > might
>> > > > be a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having
>> > > single
>> > > > > set
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on
>> > Locality
>> > > > for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as
>> Sandeep
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
>> > contradicting
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non
>> > > stream
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by
>> requesting
>> > > node
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected).
>> > But
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well
>> along
>> > > with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
>> > > > > dt-site.xml.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for
>> complex
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object
>> > properties
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
>> > > constraints:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for
>> > allocating
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained.
>> Likewise, in
>> > > > case
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the
>> application in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For
>> relaxed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule.
>> > > Please
>> > > > > note
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the
>> > affinity
>> > > as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
>> containers.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity
>> > (locality)
>> > > > in
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for
>> *any*
>> > two
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and
>> see
>> > > how
>> > > > it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type
>> > cast
>> > > it
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the
>> > same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators
>> > must
>> > > > not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one
>> is a
>> > > > much
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules,
>> > there
>> > > > must
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before
>> requesting
>> > > YARN
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is
>> no
>> > > point
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is
>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be
>> > > > "relaxed"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict
>> > rules
>> > > > may
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the
>> same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha
>> Thombare <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single
>> set of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep
>> Deshmukh <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
>> > thread/container
>> > > > > local
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
>> affect?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this
>> > > case.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity
>> > > Rules"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container
>> > > > > allocation
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay
>> Kolhatkar
>> > <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
>> > anti-affinity,
>> > > as
>> > > > > per
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure
>> > > locality
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for
>> locality.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
>> > > thread/container
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
>> affect?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as
>> above,
>> > > > would
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
>> > > anti-affinity
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is
>> > > > configured
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as
>> > > > "affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to
>> > allocate
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also
>> > > > > configured.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity
>> > > > (similar
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring
>> > locality
>> > > > > rules
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call
>> it
>> > > > > "affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
>> application
>> > is
>> > > > not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in
>> > > iteration
>> > > > > 1.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that
>> > Java
>> > > > > object
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
>> > representation
>> > > > of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some
>> special
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
>> > > representation.)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute
>> > syntax
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility
>> > > issues
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if
>> it
>> > > works
>> > > > > :-)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the
>> containers
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup,
>> especially
>> > > for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha
>> Arkatkar <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based
>> requests
>> > if
>> > > > it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I
>> > > checked
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster.
>> Yarn
>> > > does
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container
>> > > > request.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to
>> check
>> > the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity
>> > > > scheduler
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue.
>> > > Please
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression
>> > > sounds
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally
>> > based
>> > > > on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for
>> attribute
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity
>> > > across
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas
>> Weise <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise
>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away
>> > from
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to
>> claim
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at
>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations.
>> For
>> > > > > example,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work
>> > with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the
>> > CDH
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod
>> Immaneni <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be
>> > available
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas
>> Weise <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor
>> variation
>> > of
>> > > it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other
>> applications
>> > and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
>> > anti-cluster
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha
>> > > Arkatkar
>> > > > <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
>> > Anti-affinity
>> > > in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity
>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support
>> anti-affinity
>> > yet
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an
>> > > > attribute
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an
>> operator
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
>> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
>> > dag.addOperator("O2",
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 =
>> dag.addOperator("O3",
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
>> > > "O3")));
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not
>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is
>> part
>> > of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
Why would we want two different ways of specifying the same thing?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator attribute.
> Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity can be
> extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream locality, it
> may be better to let user say the two following statements independently.
>
> - This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local // This
> statement is independent of future additions of operators to this stream
> - I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same node
>
> Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only relate to
> connected operators.
>
> Thks
> Amol
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pramod,
> > >
> > > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators list
> for
> > > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both
> these
> > > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in validation
> > > phase.
> > >
> > > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or affinity
> > > rules and throw validation exception.
> > >
> > > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to not
> > include
> > > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation as
> is.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Isha
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Isha,
> > > >
> > > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between
> more
> > > than
> > > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as multiple
> > > rules
> > > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical
> > > operators?
> > > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the affinity
> > rule
> > > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of MxN
> > > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other
> cases
> > > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all the
> > > > important to have it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <isha@datatorrent.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling affinity
> > > rules
> > > > in
> > > > > Apex:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > > >
> > > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for specifying
> > > > affinity
> > > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers
> should
> > be
> > > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag
> > context.
> > > > For
> > > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs. We
> > can
> > > > add
> > > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > > >
> > > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators rand
> > and
> > > > > console:
> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > "rand",
> > > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > >
> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand operator
> > with
> > > > all
> > > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > > > "rand",
> > > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > >
> > > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru operator,
> > > give
> > > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new
> OperatorPair(
> > > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > > >
> > > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules here:
> > > > >
> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node
> > > specific
> > > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> > StreamingAppMasterService.
> > > To
> > > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to
> > > blacklist
> > > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be
> > > issued.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of
> > partitioned
> > > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or
> anti-affinity
> > > > rules?
> > > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them
> independent
> > > and
> > > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest
> what
> > > > would
> > > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Isha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in
> > apex
> > > as
> > > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed
> > > > > something.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules.
> > For
> > > > the
> > > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among
> operators
> > > > > within
> > > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to
> > > support
> > > > > > across applications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY,
> STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > > policy,
> > > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2
> > > > operators
> > > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for
> > > setting
> > > > > it
> > > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container
> > affinity
> > > as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> > > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
> > > > > HortonWorks
> > > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the
> > approach
> > > > of
> > > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for
> CDH
> > > > > distro,
> > > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not
> > > honored
> > > > > in
> > > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no
> > > > > containers
> > > > > > are allocated.
> > > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and
> Capacity
> > > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when
> setting
> > > up
> > > > > CDH
> > > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these
> > > things
> > > > in
> > > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on
> > this
> > > > > > effort! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Isha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to
> > operators
> > > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general
> > this
> > > > > should
> > > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
> > expressions.
> > > > For
> > > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
> > > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the
> > same
> > > > > host.
> > > > > >>> To
> > > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied,
> > > through
> > > > a
> > > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that
> operators
> > > > > >>>> designer
> > > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the
> > same
> > > > hack
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > rule
> > > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look
> > like
> > > a
> > > > > good
> > > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly
> > > > connected
> > > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
> > > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X may
> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container as
> X,
> > > so
> > > > X
> > > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to
> any
> > > > > specific
> > > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same
> > JVM
> > > > will
> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM
> > leads
> > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK
> for
> > > an
> > > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value
> would
> > be
> > > > an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same
> > > could
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity
> > for
> > > 2
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to partitions
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that
> > operator X
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from
> > it.
> > > Z
> > > > is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be
> necessary
> > > to
> > > > > let
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to the
> > > same
> > > > > JVM)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads from
> > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on
> > NUMA
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special
> case
> > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to
> > > express
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
> > > > > configuring
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is: affinity
> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is
> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes sense
> to
> > > > have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for
> > > REQUIRED
> > > > or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED
> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly
> > talking
> > > > > about
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of
> > > > > operators.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in a
> > > way,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was
> > straight
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up,
> > one
> > > > > might
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> > > configuration
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity
> rules.
> > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how
> both
> > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY
> ENTITIES
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED O1,
> O2
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED O3,
> O4
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1,
> O4
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is another
> > way
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration
> > > pattern,
> > > > we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and
> give
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might
> > > > quickly
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to
> add
> > > > some
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan
> > might
> > > > be a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having
> > > single
> > > > > set
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on
> > Locality
> > > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as Sandeep
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> > contradicting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non
> > > stream
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by requesting
> > > node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected).
> > But
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well along
> > > with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
> > > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for
> complex
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object
> > properties
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
> > > constraints:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for
> > allocating
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained. Likewise,
> in
> > > > case
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the application
> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For
> relaxed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule.
> > > Please
> > > > > note
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the
> > affinity
> > > as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on
> containers.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity
> > (locality)
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for *any*
> > two
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and
> see
> > > how
> > > > it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type
> > cast
> > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the
> > same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators
> > must
> > > > not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one
> is a
> > > > much
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules,
> > there
> > > > must
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before requesting
> > > YARN
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is no
> > > point
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is
> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be
> > > > "relaxed"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict
> > rules
> > > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha
> Thombare <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single set
> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh
> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > thread/container
> > > > > local
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this
> > > case.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity
> > > Rules"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container
> > > > > allocation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay
> Kolhatkar
> > <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> > anti-affinity,
> > > as
> > > > > per
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure
> > > locality
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for
> locality.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > > thread/container
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take
> affect?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as
> above,
> > > > would
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> > > anti-affinity
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is
> > > > configured
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as
> > > > "affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to
> > allocate
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also
> > > > > configured.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity
> > > > (similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring
> > locality
> > > > > rules
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call it
> > > > > "affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across
> application
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in
> > > iteration
> > > > > 1.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that
> > Java
> > > > > object
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> > representation
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some
> special
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> > > representation.)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute
> > syntax
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility
> > > issues
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if it
> > > works
> > > > > :-)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the
> containers
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup,
> especially
> > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha
> Arkatkar <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based
> requests
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I
> > > checked
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster.
> Yarn
> > > does
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container
> > > > request.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to check
> > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity
> > > > scheduler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue.
> > > Please
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression
> > > sounds
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally
> > based
> > > > on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for
> attribute
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity
> > > across
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas
> Weise <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away
> > from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to claim
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations. For
> > > > > example,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work
> > with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the
> > CDH
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod
> Immaneni <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be
> > available
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Weise
> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor variation
> > of
> > > it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other applications
> > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
> > anti-cluster
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha
> > > Arkatkar
> > > > <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> > Anti-affinity
> > > in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity
> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity
> > yet
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an
> > > > attribute
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an
> operator
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> > dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > > "O3")));
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is part
> > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>.
Stream locality is a stream attribute. Affinity is operator attribute.
Technically they may not be connected. Though operator affinity can be
extended to specify a situation that implicity covers stream locality, it
may be better to let user say the two following statements independently.
- This stream is heavy on I/O and I want it to be ..._local // This
statement is independent of future additions of operators to this stream
- I need these logical operators to not be (or be) on the same node
Do note that container_local or node_local stream localities only relate to
connected operators.
Thks
Amol
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pramod,
> >
> > We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators list for
> > affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both these
> > into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in validation
> > phase.
> >
> > And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or affinity
> > rules and throw validation exception.
> >
> > Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to not
> include
> > it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation as is.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Isha
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Isha,
> > >
> > > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between more
> > than
> > > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as multiple
> > rules
> > > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical
> > operators?
> > > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the affinity
> rule
> > > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of MxN
> > > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other cases
> > > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all the
> > > important to have it.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling affinity
> > rules
> > > in
> > > > Apex:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > > >
> > > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for specifying
> > > affinity
> > > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers should
> be
> > > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
> > > >
> > > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag
> context.
> > > For
> > > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs. We
> can
> > > add
> > > > regex support in next iteration.
> > > >
> > > > Here is sample usage:
> > > >
> > > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators rand
> and
> > > > console:
> > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> "rand",
> > > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > >
> > > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand operator
> with
> > > all
> > > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > > "rand",
> > > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > >
> > > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru operator,
> > give
> > > > same operator name in pair:
> > > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > > >
> > > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules here:
> > > > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node
> > specific
> > > > requests, that was already being handled in
> StreamingAppMasterService.
> > To
> > > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to
> > blacklist
> > > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be
> > issued.
> > > >
> > > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of
> partitioned
> > > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or anti-affinity
> > > rules?
> > > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them independent
> > and
> > > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest what
> > > would
> > > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Isha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in
> apex
> > as
> > > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed
> > > > something.
> > > > >
> > > > > * For configuration:*
> > > > >
> > > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules.
> For
> > > the
> > > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among operators
> > > > within
> > > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to
> > support
> > > > > across applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY, STRICT/RELAXED
> > > > policy,
> > > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2
> > > operators
> > > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for
> > setting
> > > > it
> > > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container
> affinity
> > as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> > > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
> > > > >
> > > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > > > >
> > > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > > >
> > > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
> > > > HortonWorks
> > > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the
> approach
> > > of
> > > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for CDH
> > > > distro,
> > > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not
> > honored
> > > > in
> > > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no
> > > > containers
> > > > > are allocated.
> > > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and Capacity
> > > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when setting
> > up
> > > > CDH
> > > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these
> > things
> > > in
> > > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on
> this
> > > > > effort! :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Isha
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to
> operators
> > > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general
> this
> > > > should
> > > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using
> expressions.
> > > For
> > > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
> > {!app2.op1}".
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the
> same
> > > > host.
> > > > >>> To
> > > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied,
> > through
> > > a
> > > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that operators
> > > > >>>> designer
> > > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the
> same
> > > hack
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> > anti-affinity
> > > > rule
> > > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look
> like
> > a
> > > > good
> > > > >>>> option :).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly
> > > connected
> > > > >>>>> by a
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
> > > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > > >>>>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X may be
> > > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container as X,
> > so
> > > X
> > > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to any
> > > > specific
> > > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same
> JVM
> > > will
> > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM
> leads
> > to
> > > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK for
> > an
> > > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value would
> be
> > > an
> > > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same
> > could
> > > be
> > > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity
> for
> > 2
> > > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to partitions
> of
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that
> operator X
> > > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from
> it.
> > Z
> > > is
> > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be necessary
> > to
> > > > let
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to the
> > same
> > > > JVM)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads from
> the
> > > > same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on
> NUMA
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special case
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to
> > express
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
> > > > configuring
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is: affinity of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes sense to
> > > have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for
> > REQUIRED
> > > or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly
> talking
> > > > about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of
> > > > operators.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in a
> > way,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was
> straight
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up,
> one
> > > > might
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> > configuration
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity rules.
> I
> > > > think
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how both
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY ENTITIES
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED O1, O2
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED O3, O4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1, O4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is another
> way
> > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration
> > pattern,
> > > we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and give
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might
> > > quickly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to add
> > > some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan
> might
> > > be a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having
> > single
> > > > set
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on
> Locality
> > > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as Sandeep
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of
> contradicting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non
> > stream
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by requesting
> > node
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected).
> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well along
> > with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
> > > > dt-site.xml.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for complex
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object
> properties
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
> > constraints:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for
> allocating
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained. Likewise, in
> > > case
> > > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the application in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For relaxed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule.
> > Please
> > > > note
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the
> affinity
> > as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on containers.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity
> (locality)
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for *any*
> two
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and see
> > how
> > > it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type
> cast
> > it
> > > > as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the
> same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators
> must
> > > not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one is a
> > > much
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules,
> there
> > > must
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before requesting
> > YARN
> > > > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is no
> > point
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be
> > > "relaxed"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict
> rules
> > > may
> > > > be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha Thombare <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single set of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> thread/container
> > > > local
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this
> > case.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity
> > Rules"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container
> > > > allocation
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar
> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring
> anti-affinity,
> > as
> > > > per
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure
> > locality
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for locality.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> > thread/container
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as above,
> > > would
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> > anti-affinity
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is
> > > configured
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as
> > > "affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to
> allocate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also
> > > > configured.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity
> > > (similar
> > > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring
> locality
> > > > rules
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call it
> > > > "affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across application
> is
> > > not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in
> > iteration
> > > > 1.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that
> Java
> > > > object
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON
> representation
> > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some special
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> > representation.)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute
> syntax
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility
> > issues
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if it
> > works
> > > > :-)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the containers
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup, especially
> > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based requests
> if
> > > it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I
> > checked
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster. Yarn
> > does
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container
> > > request.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to check
> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity
> > > scheduler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue.
> > Please
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression
> > sounds
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally
> based
> > > on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for attribute
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity
> > across
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away
> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to claim
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations. For
> > > > example,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work
> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the
> CDH
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be
> available
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor variation
> of
> > it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other applications
> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support
> anti-cluster
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha
> > Arkatkar
> > > <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for
> Anti-affinity
> > in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity
> yet
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an
> > > attribute
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an operator
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 =
> dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> > "O3")));
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is part
> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
Would it make sense to deprecate stream locality in favor of this?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Hi Pramod,
>
> We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators list for
> affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both these
> into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in validation
> phase.
>
> And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or affinity
> rules and throw validation exception.
>
> Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to not include
> it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation as is.
>
> Thanks!
> Isha
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Isha,
> >
> > If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between more
> than
> > 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as multiple
> rules
> > why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical
> operators?
> > If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the affinity rule
> > will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of MxN
> > locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other cases
> > such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all the
> > important to have it.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have opened a review only pull request for handling affinity
> rules
> > in
> > > Apex:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> > >
> > > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for specifying
> > affinity
> > > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers should be
> > > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
> > >
> > > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag context.
> > For
> > > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs. We can
> > add
> > > regex support in next iteration.
> > >
> > > Here is sample usage:
> > >
> > > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators rand and
> > > console:
> > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair( "rand",
> > > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > >
> > > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand operator with
> > all
> > > partitions of passThru operator:
> > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > "rand",
> > > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > >
> > > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru operator,
> give
> > > same operator name in pair:
> > > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> > >
> > > // Set the rules in dag context
> > > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> > >
> > >
> > > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules here:
> > > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> > >
> > >
> > > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node
> specific
> > > requests, that was already being handled in StreamingAppMasterService.
> To
> > > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to
> blacklist
> > > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be
> issued.
> > >
> > > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of partitioned
> > > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or anti-affinity
> > rules?
> > > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them independent
> and
> > > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest what
> > would
> > > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Isha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in apex
> as
> > > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed
> > > something.
> > > >
> > > > * For configuration:*
> > > >
> > > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules. For
> > the
> > > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among operators
> > > within
> > > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to
> support
> > > > across applications.
> > > >
> > > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY, STRICT/RELAXED
> > > policy,
> > > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2
> > operators
> > > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for
> setting
> > > it
> > > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container affinity
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> > > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
> > > >
> > > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > > >
> > > > *For Implementation: *
> > > >
> > > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
> > > HortonWorks
> > > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the approach
> > of
> > > > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
> > > >
> > > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for CDH
> > > distro,
> > > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not
> honored
> > > in
> > > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no
> > > containers
> > > > are allocated.
> > > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and Capacity
> > > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when setting
> up
> > > CDH
> > > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > > >
> > > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these
> things
> > in
> > > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on this
> > > > effort! :)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Isha
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to operators
> > > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general this
> > > should
> > > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using expressions.
> > For
> > > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and
> {!app2.op1}".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the same
> > > host.
> > > >>> To
> > > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied,
> through
> > a
> > > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that operators
> > > >>>> designer
> > > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the same
> > hack
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with
> anti-affinity
> > > rule
> > > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look like
> a
> > > good
> > > >>>> option :).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > >
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly
> > connected
> > > >>>>> by a
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>>>> >
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
> > > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > > >>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X may be
> > > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container as X,
> so
> > X
> > > >>>>>>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to any
> > > specific
> > > >>>>>>>> host.
> > > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same JVM
> > will
> > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM leads
> to
> > > >>>>>>>> inter
> > > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK for
> an
> > > >>>>>>>> operator
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value would be
> > an
> > > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same
> could
> > be
> > > >>>>>>>>> used
> > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity for
> 2
> > > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to partitions of
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>>> same
> > > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that operator X
> > > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from it.
> Z
> > is
> > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be necessary
> to
> > > let
> > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to the
> same
> > > JVM)
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads from the
> > > same
> > > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on NUMA
> > > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special case
> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to
> express
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > isha@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
> > > configuring
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is: affinity of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes sense to
> > have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for
> REQUIRED
> > or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly talking
> > > about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of
> > > operators.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in a
> way,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was straight
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up, one
> > > might
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted
> configuration
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity rules. I
> > > think
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how both
> can
> > > be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY ENTITIES
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED O1, O2
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED O3, O4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1, O4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is another way
> > of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration
> pattern,
> > we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and give
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might
> > quickly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to add
> > some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan might
> > be a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having
> single
> > > set
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on Locality
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as Sandeep
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of contradicting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non
> stream
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by requesting
> node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected). But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well along
> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
> > > dt-site.xml.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for complex
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object properties
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy
> constraints:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for allocating
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained. Likewise, in
> > case
> > > of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the application in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For relaxed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule.
> Please
> > > note
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the affinity
> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on containers.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity (locality)
> > in
> > > a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for *any* two
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and see
> how
> > it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type cast
> it
> > > as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators must
> > not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one is a
> > much
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules, there
> > must
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before requesting
> YARN
> > > for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is no
> point
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be
> > "relaxed"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict rules
> > may
> > > be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha Thombare <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single set of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container
> > > local
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this
> case.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity
> Rules"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container
> > > allocation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring anti-affinity,
> as
> > > per
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure
> locality
> > > and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for locality.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures
> thread/container
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as above,
> > would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both
> anti-affinity
> > > and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is
> > configured
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as
> > "affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to allocate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also
> > > configured.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity
> > (similar
> > > to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring locality
> > > rules
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call it
> > > "affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across application is
> > not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in
> iteration
> > > 1.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that Java
> > > object
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON representation
> > of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some special
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON
> representation.)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute syntax
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility
> issues
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if it
> works
> > > :-)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the containers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup, especially
> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based requests if
> > it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I
> checked
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster. Yarn
> does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container
> > request.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to check the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity
> > scheduler
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue.
> Please
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression
> sounds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally based
> > on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for attribute
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity
> across
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to claim
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations. For
> > > example,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the CDH
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be available
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor variation of
> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other applications and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support anti-cluster
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha
> Arkatkar
> > <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for Anti-affinity
> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity yet
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an
> > attribute
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an operator
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 = dag.addOperator("O2",
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3",
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2",
> "O3")));
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is part of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Hi Pramod,
We can have a list or operators or regex to specify operators list for
affinity rule. Though, internal implementation will translate both these
into list of pairs. Since, having pair of operators helps in validation
phase.
And yes, validation phase will catch conflicting locality or affinity
rules and throw validation exception.
Thanks for input regarding unifiers. It is probably alright to not include
it in the affinity settings. Will leave the current implementation as is.
Thanks!
Isha
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
> Isha,
>
> If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between more than
> 2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as multiple rules
> why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical operators?
> If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the affinity rule
> will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of MxN
> locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other cases
> such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all the
> important to have it.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have opened a review only pull request for handling affinity rules
> in
> > Apex:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
> >
> > Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for specifying
> affinity
> > rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers should be
> > handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
> >
> > I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag context.
> For
> > now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs. We can
> add
> > regex support in next iteration.
> >
> > Here is sample usage:
> >
> > List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> > // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators rand and
> > console:
> > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair( "rand",
> > "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >
> > // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand operator with
> all
> > partitions of passThru operator:
> > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> "rand",
> > "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >
> > // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru operator, give
> > same operator name in pair:
> > rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> > "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
> >
> > // Set the rules in dag context
> > dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
> >
> >
> > Please find a sample application using these affinity rules here:
> > https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
> >
> >
> > The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node specific
> > requests, that was already being handled in StreamingAppMasterService. To
> > handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to blacklist
> > all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be issued.
> >
> > There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of partitioned
> > operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or anti-affinity
> rules?
> > Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them independent and
> > only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest what
> would
> > make more sense from user's specification perspective.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in apex as
> > > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed
> > something.
> > >
> > > * For configuration:*
> > >
> > > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules. For
> the
> > > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among operators
> > within
> > > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to support
> > > across applications.
> > >
> > > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY, STRICT/RELAXED
> > policy,
> > > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2
> operators
> > > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for setting
> > it
> > > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container affinity as
> > > well.
> > > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> > > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
> > >
> > > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> > >
> > > *For Implementation: *
> > >
> > > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
> > HortonWorks
> > > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the approach
> of
> > > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
> > >
> > > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for CDH
> > distro,
> > > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not honored
> > in
> > > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no
> > containers
> > > are allocated.
> > > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and Capacity
> > > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when setting up
> > CDH
> > > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> > >
> > > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these things
> in
> > > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on this
> > > effort! :)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Isha
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to operators
> > >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general this
> > should
> > >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using expressions.
> For
> > >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and {!app2.op1}".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the same
> > host.
> > >>> To
> > >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied, through
> a
> > >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that operators
> > >>>> designer
> > >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the same
> hack
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with anti-affinity
> > rule
> > >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look like a
> > good
> > >>>> option :).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly
> connected
> > >>>>> by a
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> > v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> > >>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
> > >>>>>>> functionality.
> > >>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X may be
> > >>>>>>>> deployed
> > >>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container as X, so
> X
> > >>>>>>>> does
> > >>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to any
> > specific
> > >>>>>>>> host.
> > >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same JVM
> will
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM leads to
> > >>>>>>>> inter
> > >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK for an
> > >>>>>>>> operator
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value would be
> an
> > >>>>>>>>> alias
> > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same could
> be
> > >>>>>>>>> used
> > >>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity for 2
> > >>>>>>>>> operators.
> > >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to partitions of
> the
> > >>>>>>>>> same
> > >>>>>>>>> operator.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> > >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that operator X
> > >>>>>>>>> writes
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from it. Z
> is
> > >>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be necessary to
> > let
> > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to the same
> > JVM)
> > >>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads from the
> > same
> > >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on NUMA
> > >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> > >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> > >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special case of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> > >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > >>>>>>>>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to express
> > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> > isha@datatorrent.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
> > configuring
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is: affinity of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is only
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes sense to
> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for REQUIRED
> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly talking
> > about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of
> > operators.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in a way,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was straight
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up, one
> > might
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted configuration
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity rules. I
> > think
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how both can
> > be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY ENTITIES
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED O1, O2
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED O3, O4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1, O4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is another way
> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration pattern,
> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and give
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might
> quickly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to add
> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan might
> be a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having single
> > set
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on Locality
> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as Sandeep
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of contradicting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non stream
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by requesting node
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected). But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well along with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
> > dt-site.xml.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for complex
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object properties
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy constraints:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for allocating
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained. Likewise, in
> case
> > of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the application in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For relaxed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule. Please
> > note
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the affinity as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on containers.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity (locality)
> in
> > a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for *any* two
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and see how
> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type cast it
> > as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators must
> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one is a
> much
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules, there
> must
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before requesting YARN
> > for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is no point
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be
> "relaxed"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict rules
> may
> > be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha Thombare <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single set of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container
> > local
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this case.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity Rules"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container
> > allocation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring anti-affinity, as
> > per
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure locality
> > and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for locality.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as above,
> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both anti-affinity
> > and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is
> configured
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as
> "affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to allocate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also
> > configured.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity
> (similar
> > to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring locality
> > rules
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call it
> > "affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across application is
> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in iteration
> > 1.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that Java
> > object
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON representation
> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some special
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON representation.)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute syntax
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility issues
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if it works
> > :-)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the containers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup, especially for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based requests if
> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I checked
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster. Yarn does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container
> request.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to check the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity
> scheduler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue. Please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression sounds
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally based
> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for attribute
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity across
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to claim
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations. For
> > example,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the CDH
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be available
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Weise <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor variation of it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other applications and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support anti-cluster
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha Arkatkar
> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for Anti-affinity in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity yet
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an
> attribute
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an operator
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> > dag.addOperator("O1",
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 = dag.addOperator("O2",
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3",
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2", "O3")));
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is part of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>.
Isha,
If the implementation would support (eventually) affinity between more than
2 logical operators, instead of relying on specifying it as multiple rules
why not make provision in the API to specify more than 2 logical operators?
If there is a stream locality rule that conflicts with the affinity rule
will the validation catch this? With unifiers the common case of MxN
locality is already chosen based on downstream operator. In other cases
such as single downstream or cascade case I am not sure it is all the
important to have it.
Thanks
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have opened a review only pull request for handling affinity rules in
> Apex:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
>
> Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for specifying affinity
> rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers should be
> handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
>
> I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag context. For
> now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs. We can add
> regex support in next iteration.
>
> Here is sample usage:
>
> List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
> // To add node locality between 2 not connected operators rand and
> console:
> rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair( "rand",
> "console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
>
> // To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand operator with all
> partitions of passThru operator:
> rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair( "rand",
> "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
>
> // To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru operator, give
> same operator name in pair:
> rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
> "passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
>
> // Set the rules in dag context
> dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
>
>
> Please find a sample application using these affinity rules here:
> https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
>
>
> The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node specific
> requests, that was already being handled in StreamingAppMasterService. To
> handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to blacklist
> all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be issued.
>
> There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of partitioned
> operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or anti-affinity rules?
> Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them independent and
> only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest what would
> make more sense from user's specification perspective.
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in apex as
> > per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed
> something.
> >
> > * For configuration:*
> >
> > - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules. For the
> > first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among operators
> within
> > single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to support
> > across applications.
> >
> > - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> > <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY, STRICT/RELAXED
> policy,
> > CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> > I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2 operators
> > that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for setting
> it
> > through application. So, affinity rules can cover container affinity as
> > well.
> > We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> > anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
> >
> > The list of operators can also be specified by regex
> >
> > *For Implementation: *
> >
> > - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by
> HortonWorks
> > for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the approach of
> > node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
> >
> > - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for CDH
> distro,
> > as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> > -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not honored
> in
> > CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no
> containers
> > are allocated.
> > -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and Capacity
> > Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when setting up
> CDH
> > 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
> >
> > I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these things in
> > mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on this
> > effort! :)
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Isha
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to operators
> >> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general this
> should
> >> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using expressions. For
> >> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and {!app2.op1}".
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >>
> >>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the same
> host.
> >>> To
> >>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied, through a
> >>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that operators
> >>>> designer
> >>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the same hack
> >>>> to
> >>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with anti-affinity
> rule
> >>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look like a
> good
> >>>> option :).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly connected
> >>>>> by a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <
> v.rozov@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
> >>>>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X may be
> >>>>>>>> deployed
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container as X, so X
> >>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to any
> specific
> >>>>>>>> host.
> >>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same JVM will
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM leads to
> >>>>>>>> inter
> >>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK for an
> >>>>>>>> operator
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value would be an
> >>>>>>>>> alias
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same could be
> >>>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity for 2
> >>>>>>>>> operators.
> >>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to partitions of the
> >>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>> operator.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
> >>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that operator X
> >>>>>>>>> writes
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from it. Z is
> >>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be necessary to
> let
> >>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to the same
> JVM)
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads from the
> same
> >>>>>>>>>> JVM
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on NUMA
> >>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
> >>>>>>>>>> NUMA
> >>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special case of
> >>>>>>>>>>> generic
> >>>>>>>>>>> rules
> >>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would be
> >>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> >>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to express
> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <
> isha@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for
> configuring
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well
> >>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is: affinity of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> >>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes sense to have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for REQUIRED or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
> >>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly talking
> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of
> operators.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in a way,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was straight
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up, one
> might
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
> >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> part
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted configuration
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity rules. I
> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how both can
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY ENTITIES
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED O1, O2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED O3, O4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1, O4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> &
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is another way of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration pattern, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and give
> >>>>>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might quickly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to add some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan might be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> early
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having single
> set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on Locality for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as Sandeep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of contradicting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non stream
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by requesting node
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected). But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well along with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from
> dt-site.xml.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for complex
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object properties
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy constraints:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for allocating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained. Likewise, in case
> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the application in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For relaxed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule. Please
> note
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the affinity as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on containers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity (locality) in
> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for *any* two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and see how it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type cast it
> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators must not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one is a much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules, there must
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before requesting YARN
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is no point
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be "relaxed"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict rules may
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha Thombare <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single set of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container
> local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity Rules"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container
> allocation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring anti-affinity, as
> per
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure locality
> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for locality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as above, would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both anti-affinity
> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is configured
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as "affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to allocate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also
> configured.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity (similar
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring locality
> rules
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call it
> "affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across application is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in iteration
> 1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that Java
> object
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON representation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some special
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON representation.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute syntax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if it works
> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the containers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup, especially for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based requests if it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I checked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster. Yarn does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container request.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to check the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity scheduler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue. Please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression sounds
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally based on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for attribute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity across
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Weise <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations. For
> example,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the CDH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be available
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Weise <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor variation of it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other applications and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support anti-cluster
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for Anti-affinity in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity yet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an attribute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an operator
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 =
> dag.addOperator("O1",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 = dag.addOperator("O2",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2", "O3")));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is part of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Support for Anti-Affinity in Apex
Posted by Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com>.
Hi all,
I have opened a review only pull request for handling affinity rules in
Apex:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/pull/234
Just wanted to confirm with everyone, if the APIs for specifying affinity
rules look alright. Also, wanted to get views on how unifiers should be
handled in case of operator affinity rules. More details follow:
I have added a list of affinity rules as an attribute in Dag context. For
now, have added AffinityRule to be specified for operator pairs. We can add
regex support in next iteration.
Here is sample usage:
List<AffinityRule> rules = new ArrayList<>();
// To add node locality between 2 not connected operators rand and
console:
rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.AFFINITY, new OperatorPair( "rand",
"console"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
// To add anti-affinity between all partitions of rand operator with all
partitions of passThru operator:
rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair( "rand",
"passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
// To add anti-affinity between partitions of passThru operator, give
same operator name in pair:
rules.add(new AffinityRule(Type.ANTI_AFFINITY, new OperatorPair(
"passThru", "passThru"), Locality.NODE_LOCAL, false));
// Set the rules in dag context
dag.setAttribute(DAGContext.AFFINITY_RULES, rules);
Please find a sample application using these affinity rules here:
https://github.com/ishark/Apex-Samples/tree/master/affinity-example
The actual implementation of affinity rules heavily depends node specific
requests, that was already being handled in StreamingAppMasterService. To
handle node requests for cloudera, I have added an override to blacklist
all other nodes except the ones where container request is to be issued.
There is one open question I wanted to bring up: In case of partitioned
operators, should the unifiers also follow affinity or anti-affinity rules?
Or should they be independent. For now, I have kept them independent and
only the actual operators follow affinity rules. Please suggest what would
make more sense from user's specification perspective.
Thanks,
Isha
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Isha Arkatkar <is...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Summarizing the proposal for affinity/anti-affinity rules in apex as
> per discussions in this mail thread. Please suggest if I missed something.
>
> * For configuration:*
>
> - We will have application level affinity/anti-affinity rules. For the
> first iteration, we can support for (anti-)affinity among operators within
> single application. We can revisit it in the next iteration to support
> across applications.
>
> - Each rule will consist of 4 components:
> <List of operators>, AFFINITY/ANTI-AFFINITY, STRICT/RELAXED policy,
> CONTAINER/NODE/RACK
> I have checked that Apex supports container locality between 2 operators
> that are not connected by Steam. Though did not find an API for setting it
> through application. So, affinity rules can cover container affinity as
> well.
> We will not support THREAD locality in app level affinity or
> anti-affinity, since it does not apply to unconnected operators.
>
> The list of operators can also be specified by regex
>
> *For Implementation: *
>
> - I have verified that Node specific requests are honored by HortonWorks
> for both Fair and Capacity scheduler. So we can go with the approach of
> node specific container requests to implement affinity rules.
>
> - However, we may need to fall back on blacklist approach for CDH distro,
> as node specific requests may not work well. As:
> -> With Fair scheduler, node specific requests are not honored in
> CDH 4. Application master keeps sending requests to Yarn, but no containers
> are allocated.
> -> I could not yet verify the same with Fair and Capacity
> Scheduler on CDH 5. Ran into some configuration issues when setting up CDH
> 5.5.1. Will update the thread with findings.
>
> I will try to build a prototype for affinity rules with these things in
> mind. Please let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on this
> effort! :)
>
> Thanks!
> Isha
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, with ability to refer not only to a host name, but to operators
>> (possibly both in the same and other applications). In general this should
>> allow to specify both affinity and anti affinity using expressions. For
>> example LOCALITY_CONTAINER = "{app1.op1 or app1.op2} and {!app2.op1}".
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/16 09:39, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. Originally I thought you wanted both operators on the same host.
>>> To
>>> pin them to the same container the same idea can be applied, through a
>>> "LOCALITY_CONTAINER" attribute.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Works as a workaround and requires two extra ports that operators
>>>> designer
>>>> may not necessarily provide out of the box. We may apply the same hack
>>>> to
>>>> anti-affinity and request that any two operators with anti-affinity rule
>>>> are connected by non functional stream, but it does not look like a good
>>>> option :).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/25/16 08:52, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sandeep suggested to connect them with a stream.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Vlad Rozov <v....@datatorrent.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, possibly I miss something. X and Z are not directly connected
>>>>> by a
>>>>>
>>>>>> stream, how can I apply THREAD_LOCAL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/25/16 08:44, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does THREAD_LOCAL not work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Vlad Rozov <v.rozov@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither LOCALITY_HOST or THREAD_LOCAL provides required
>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> goal is to deploy X and Z to the same container/JVM. X may be
>>>>>>>> deployed
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> any node. Z needs to be deployed on the same container as X, so X
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> have any host affinity, and Z has affinity to X, not to any specific
>>>>>>>> host.
>>>>>>>> If database client caches writes, reading inside the same JVM will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> process lookup, while deploying Z to any other host/JVM leads to
>>>>>>>> inter
>>>>>>>> process or inter host lookup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 21:03, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are the attributes LOCALITY_HOST and LOCALITY_RACK for an
>>>>>>>> operator
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> achieve precisely what you are describing. The value would be an
>>>>>>>>> alias
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> can be mapped to physical hosts for allocation. The same could be
>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity, by assigning different values.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stream locality is a special case of expressing affinity for 2
>>>>>>>>> operators.
>>>>>>>>> Note that we also need a way to extend this to partitions of the
>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> operator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <
>>>>>>>>> v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It may be quite extreme use case, but suppose that operator X
>>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> distributed in-memory database and operator Z reads from it. Z is
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> directly connected to X. In such cases it may be necessary to let
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> application request container affinity (deploying to the same JVM)
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> operators X and Z as writes may be cached and reads from the same
>>>>>>>>>> JVM
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> be potentially faster.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Technically the same may be applied to thread local on NUMA
>>>>>>>>>> boxes, as
>>>>>>>>>> NUMA
>>>>>>>>>> aware deployment of containers is not supported.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/16 18:01, Yogi Devendra wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL on stream is a special case of
>>>>>>>>>>> generic
>>>>>>>>>>> rules
>>>>>>>>>>> for Operator X and Operator Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can say that, THREAD_LOCAL, CONTAINER_LOCAL would be
>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> operator X and Y are connected by stream. But, way to express
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be similar to other rules for affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 January 2016 at 03:49, Isha Arkatkar <isha@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chinmay,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I certainly agree on common set of rules for configuring
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> affinity!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well
>>>>>>>>>>>> put by a concrete example. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I would like to point is: affinity of
>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> cover thread and container locality. Since this is only
>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> operators are connected by stream. So, it makes sense to have
>>>>>>>>>>>> it on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than in common configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, DAG.validate should only check for REQUIRED or
>>>>>>>>>>>> STRICT
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> can agree on one of the terminologies STRICT/RELAXED or
>>>>>>>>>>>> REQUIRED/PREFERRED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha, Bhupesh,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I suggested singe affinity rule, I was mainly talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>> "how
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of configuration and not of implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see locality is in a way suggesting an affinity of operators.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> close terminologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By configuring a locality on stream, we're also, in a way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defining
>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity of operators.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until now, only locality was there and hence was straight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration for user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow, when anti-affinity configuration comes up, one might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on how to best use both locality & anti-affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence suggested to make both (locality/affinity &
>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of single configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestion is to have a more commonly adopted configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> admins
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer's are familiar with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again referring to vShere Hypervisor's affinity rules. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single configuration which does both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, here is a quick suggestion on how both can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> achieved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single configuration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CATEGORY TYPE POLICY ENTITIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity THREAD REQUIRED O1, O2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Operator1 & Operator2 should be thread local
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Affinity NODE PREFERRED O3, O4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3 &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred to be in node local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity NODE REQUIRED O1, O4
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1 &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 should not be on same node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AntiAffinity RACK PREFERRED O2, O4
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> //Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>>>> O4 are preferred not to be on same rack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux setting affinity of CPUs for threads is another way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can take a look at.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Learning from these commonly adopted configuration pattern, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with best configuration suitable for distributed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Idea here is to not have our own configuration and give
>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the users. Otherwise such an important concept might quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DAG.validate I think we would need to add some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take care of anti-affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, anti-affinity/affinity should be validated at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG.validate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones which are required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For preferred policies, validation in logical plan might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> early
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for inputs! I like the idea of having single set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (anti?)affinity rules at dag context level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There could still be conflicts based on Locality for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality attribute set for operators. But as Sandeep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Dag.validate should fail in case of contradicting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We currently do not have 'affinity' among non stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhupesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out. It is somewhat achievable by requesting node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators (Assuming node requests work as expected). But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding affinity specifications support as well along with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding specification of attributes from dt-site.xml.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Json like string or even xml representation for complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our current behavior for setting Java object properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> XML?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the same for this as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for precedence or ability to satisfy constraints:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario, if resources are not available for allocating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending to request till all are obtained. Likewise, in case of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity policy, we should keep the application in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCEPTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-affinity constraint is satisfied. For relaxed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide timeout for relaxing the anti-affinity rule. Please note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies only when we have non-contradicting rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhupesh@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on having a single set of rules for the affinity as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity of operators / partitions on containers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I noted the following points:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. AFAIK, we do not support affinity (locality) in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity is only for a stream, not for *any* two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also look at the general case and see how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are valid use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Coming to anti-affinity, we cannot type cast it as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule. Saying "two operators must be on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from saying "these two operators must not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container". In this case, the second one is a much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relaxed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to the first one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Once we have this generic set of rules, there must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "satisfiability" test run before requesting YARN for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request is not satisfiable, then there is no point
>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers in this manner. In case it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a default order in which the rules can be "relaxed"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfiable. For example, some very strict rules may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less constraining ( for example "on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> container" =>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bhupesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Aniruddha Thombare <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aniruddha@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 On Chinmay's suggestion about having single set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aniruddha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandeep@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DAG validation step should error out in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on suggestion by Chinmay to name it "Affinity Rules"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity. We are just extending our container allocation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support containers not to be allocated together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandeep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chinmay@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Isha,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. About the interface to configuring anti-affinity, as per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above there are 2 different way to configure locality and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. dag.setAttribute - for anti-affinity &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.addStream(...).setLocality for locality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between 2 operators, if one configures thread/container
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity as well, which one will take affect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Consider there could be such confusion as above, would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single API which takes care of both anti-affinity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, one is configurable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. This point is coming from how VM affinity is configured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vSphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The VMs are configured affinity are called as "affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anti-affinity rules". Ultimately idea is to allocate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Via "VM-VM affinity rules", anti-affinity is also configured.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single set of rule definition for both affinity (similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our case) and anti-affinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be a better approach for configuring locality rules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity rules in a single rule and call it "affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinmay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Yogi Devendra <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yogidevendra@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that anti-affinity across application is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be OK even if we do not have it in iteration 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for attributes syntax; I still think that Java object
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided as they will be hard to configure from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dt-site.xml or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other suggestion for this could be JSON representation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> array:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["O2", "O3"]. (If operator names has some special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or [
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or , those will be escaped in the JSON representation.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if others agree on this; but attribute syntax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iteration 1 to avoid backward compatibility issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Yogi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node based requests is the best approach - if it works :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacklisting will require to allocate the containers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but slow down application startup, especially for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Isha Arkatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider the node based requests if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scheduler or avoid 2b approach altogether? I checked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not work with fair scheduler on CDH cluster. Yarn does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container if hostname is given in the container request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a small virtual hortonworks cluster to check the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YARN-2027 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container requests are not honored in capacity scheduler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if it is because of distro dependent issue. Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Vlad, Adding support for regular expression sounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translate to list of operator names internally based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Yogi, I went with a list of strings for attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "O2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a valid single operator name too :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure of ways to implement anti-affinity across
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to consider for later iteration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLIDER-82
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point was that containers are taken away from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to discard work etc. It's not good style to claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them eventually :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this feature it is necessary to look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities/semantics and limitations. For example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on node requests if the goal is for it to work with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FairScheduler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also look at Slider, which just recently added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using node requests). When you run it on the CDH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't work...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once released won't the containers be available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would only be optional and not mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Weise <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thomas@datatorrent.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about also supporting a minor variation of it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it greedily gets the total number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't use and repeats the process for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> till
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been allocated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is problematic as with resource preemption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially taken away from other applications and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also does it make sense to support anti-cluster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha Arkatkar <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isha@datatorrent.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want add support for Anti-affinity in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch specific physical operators on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes(APEXCORE-10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions/ideas for the same!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reasons for using anti-affinity in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some application specific constraints(for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be run on the same node since they use same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (YARN-1042
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators/partitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One way for this is to have an attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the logical operator context. And an operator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of operator names which should not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collocated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider dag with 3 operators:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o1 = dag.addOperator("O1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o2 = dag.addOperator("O2",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestOperator());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag.setAttribute(o1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2", "O3")));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would mean O1 should not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allocated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if same operator name is part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-affinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>