|
|
@@ -1,899 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
-/**
|
|
|
- * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
|
|
|
- * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
|
|
|
- * distributed with this work for additional information
|
|
|
- * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
|
|
|
- * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
|
|
|
- * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
|
|
|
- * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
- * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
- * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
- * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
- * limitations under the License.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-package org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity;
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-import org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.CapacitySchedulerConfiguration;
|
|
|
-import org.junit.Before;
|
|
|
-import org.junit.Test;
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-import java.io.IOException;
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-import static org.mockito.Matchers.argThat;
|
|
|
-import static org.mockito.Mockito.times;
|
|
|
-import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-/**
|
|
|
- * Test class for IntraQueuePreemption scenarios.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-public class TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyIntraQueueUserLimit
|
|
|
- extends
|
|
|
- ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicyMockFramework {
|
|
|
- @Before
|
|
|
- public void setup() {
|
|
|
- super.setup();
|
|
|
- conf.setBoolean(
|
|
|
- CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_ENABLED, true);
|
|
|
- policy = new ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy(rmContext, cs, mClock);
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUsers()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Preconditions:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 100 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority
|
|
|
- * has a demand of 0 and its already using 100. app2 from user2 has a demand
|
|
|
- * of 30, and UL is 50. 30 would be preempted from app1.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
|
|
|
- // resources from app1.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(30)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithSingleUser()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 100 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user1 | 1 | 0 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Given single user, lower priority/late submitted apps has to
|
|
|
- * wait.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user1)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 needs more resource. Since app1,2 are from same user, there wont be
|
|
|
- // any preemption.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUserUnderUserLimit()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 30 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority
|
|
|
- * has a demand of 0 and its already using 50. app2 from user2 has a demand
|
|
|
- * of 30, and UL is 50. Since app1 is under UL, there should not be any
|
|
|
- * preemption.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 80 30 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 80 30 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 needs more resource. Since app1,2 are from same user, there wont be
|
|
|
- // any preemption.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testSimpleIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoUsersWithAppPriority()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 2 | 100 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. app1 of high priority
|
|
|
- * has a demand of 0 and its already using 100. app2 from user2 has a demand
|
|
|
- * of 30, and UL is 50. 30 would be preempted from app1.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 30 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 30 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(2,1,n1,,100,false,0,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,30,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
|
|
|
- // resources from app1 even though its priority is more than app2.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(30)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitWithMultipleApps()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 20 | 20 |
|
|
|
- * | app3 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * | app4 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
|
|
|
- * apps and check for preemption across apps.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 80 90 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 80 90 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" +
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app3 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" +
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app4 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
|
|
|
- // preempt resources from app3 (compare to app1, app3 has low priority).
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(3))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testNoPreemptionOfUserLimitWithMultipleAppsAndSameUser()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user1 | 1 | 20 | 20 |
|
|
|
- * | app3 | user1 | 1 | 30 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * | app4 | user1 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
|
|
|
- * apps and check for preemption across apps.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 80 90 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 80 90 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,20,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user1);" +
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app3 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" +
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app4 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
|
|
|
- // preempt resources from app3 (compare to app1, app3 has low priority).
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(2))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(3))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(4))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitWitAppsOfDifferentPriority()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 3 | 30 | 30 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 20 | 20 |
|
|
|
- * | app3 | user1 | 4 | 30 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app4 | user2 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
|
|
|
- * apps and check for preemption across apps.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(
|
|
|
- CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 80 60 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 80 60 0])"; // b
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(3,1,n1,,30,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" + "a\t" // app3 in a
|
|
|
- + "(4,1,n1,,30,false,0,user1);" + "a\t" // app4 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
|
|
|
- // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testIntraQueuePreemptionOfUserLimitInTwoQueues()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * / \
|
|
|
- * a b
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Guaranteed resource of a/b are 40:60 Total cluster resource = 100
|
|
|
- * maxIntraQueuePreemptableLimit by default is 50%. This test is to verify
|
|
|
- * that intra-queue preemption could occur in two queues when user-limit
|
|
|
- * irreuglarity is present in queue.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 90 80 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[60 100 55 60 0]);" + // a
|
|
|
- "-b(=[40 100 35 20 0])"; // b
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(3,1,n1,,20,false,30,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,20,false,20,user2);" +
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app3 in a
|
|
|
- + "(4,1,n1,,15,false,0,user1);" +
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app4 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user2);" +
|
|
|
- "b\t" // app5 in b
|
|
|
- + "(3,1,n1,,25,false,10,user1);" +
|
|
|
- "b\t" // app6 in b
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,10,false,10,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
|
|
|
- // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(4)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(5))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testIntraQueuePreemptionWithTwoRequestingUsers()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 60 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 40 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
|
|
|
- * apps and check for preemption across apps.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,60,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,10,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
|
|
|
- // resources from app1.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(9)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(2))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndLowPriorityExtraUsers()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Preconditions:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 50 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app3 | user3 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user
|
|
|
- // limit percent).
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.7);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t\
|
|
|
- // (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP;
|
|
|
- "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1
|
|
|
- "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2
|
|
|
- "a\t(0,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50"; // app3, user3
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
|
|
|
- // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(2))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndSamePriorityExtraUsers()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Preconditions:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 50 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app3 | user3 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user
|
|
|
- // limit percent).
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.7);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t\
|
|
|
- // (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP;
|
|
|
- "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1
|
|
|
- "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2
|
|
|
- "a\t(1,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50"; // app3, user3
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
|
|
|
- // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(2))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionIfBelowUserLimitAndHighPriorityExtraUsers()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Preconditions:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 50 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 50 | 0 |
|
|
|
- * | app3 | user3 | 5 | 0 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * This scenario should never preempt from either user1 or user2
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption per round to 50% (this is different from minimum user
|
|
|
- // limit percent).
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.7);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 10 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 10 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t\
|
|
|
- // (priority,resource,host,label,#repeat,reserved,pending,user)\tMULP;
|
|
|
- "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user1)\t50;" + // app1, user1
|
|
|
- "a\t(1,1,n1,,50,false,0,user2)\t50;" + // app2, user2
|
|
|
- "a\t(5,1,n1,,0,false,10,user3)\t50"; // app3, user3
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2/app4 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence
|
|
|
- // preempt resources from app1 (compare to app3, app1 has low priority).
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(2))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testNoIntraQueuePreemptionWithUserLimitDeadzone()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 60 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 40 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
|
|
|
- * apps and check for preemption across apps but also ensure that user's
|
|
|
- * usage not coming under its user-limit.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,3,n1,,20,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,10,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
|
|
|
- // 3 resources (9GB) from app1. We will not preempt last container as it may
|
|
|
- // pull user's usage under its user-limit.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(2))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- @Test
|
|
|
- public void testIntraQueuePreemptionWithUserLimitDeadzoneAndPriority()
|
|
|
- throws IOException {
|
|
|
- /**
|
|
|
- * Queue structure is:
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * <pre>
|
|
|
- * root
|
|
|
- * |
|
|
|
- * a
|
|
|
- * </pre>
|
|
|
- *
|
|
|
- * Scenario:
|
|
|
- * Queue total resources: 100
|
|
|
- * Minimum user limit percent: 50%
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | APP | USER | PRIORITY | USED | PENDING |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * | app1 | user1 | 1 | 60 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * | app2 | user2 | 1 | 40 | 10 |
|
|
|
- * +--------------+----------+------+---------+
|
|
|
- * Hence in queueA of 100, each user has a quota of 50. Now have multiple
|
|
|
- * apps and check for preemption across apps but also ensure that user's
|
|
|
- * usage not coming under its user-limit.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // Set max preemption limit as 50%.
|
|
|
- conf.setFloat(CapacitySchedulerConfiguration.
|
|
|
- INTRAQUEUE_PREEMPTION_MAX_ALLOWABLE_LIMIT,
|
|
|
- (float) 0.5);
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String labelsConfig = "=100,true;";
|
|
|
- String nodesConfig = // n1 has no label
|
|
|
- "n1= res=100";
|
|
|
- String queuesConfig =
|
|
|
- // guaranteed,max,used,pending,reserved
|
|
|
- "root(=[100 100 100 20 0]);" + // root
|
|
|
- "-a(=[100 100 100 20 0])"; // a
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- String appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,3,n1,,20,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(2,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,40,false,20,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 needs more resource and its well under its user-limit. Hence preempt
|
|
|
- // 3 resources (9GB) from app1. We will not preempt last container as it may
|
|
|
- // pull user's usage under its user-limit.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(0)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(2))));
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // After first round, 3 containers were preempted from app1 and resource
|
|
|
- // distribution will be like below.
|
|
|
- appsConfig =
|
|
|
- // queueName\t(priority,resource,host,expression,#repeat,reserved,pending)
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app1 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,3,n1,,17,false,10,user1);" + // app1 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(2,1,n1,,0,false,10,user1);" + // app2 a
|
|
|
- "a\t" // app2 in a
|
|
|
- + "(1,1,n1,,49,false,11,user2)";
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- buildEnv(labelsConfig, nodesConfig, queuesConfig, appsConfig);
|
|
|
- policy.editSchedule();
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- // app2 has priority demand within same user 'user1'. However user1's used
|
|
|
- // is alredy under UL. Hence no preemption. We will still get 3 container
|
|
|
- // while asserting as it was aleady selected in earlier round.
|
|
|
- verify(mDisp, times(3)).handle(argThat(
|
|
|
- new TestProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.IsPreemptionRequestFor(
|
|
|
- getAppAttemptId(1))));
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-}
|
Eric Payne