Hi Everyone, This proposal is being tracked through YUNIKORN-2795 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-2795>. Raised PR <https://github.com/apache/yunikorn-core/pull/937> as well. Please follow up the jira and pr for more updates.
Thanks, Mani On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:35 AM Manikandan R <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > As you are aware, We have been doing Preemption Hardening exercise to > address the gaps discovered in earlier releases. It is being tracked under > this <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-2493> umbrella jira. > > It contains a number of sub tasks. While working on this, we came across a use > case <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-2736> from a member > of the community that seemed to be valid at first sight. On further > investigation, We realized that taking care of the same by making changes > in code would lead to Preemption Storm causing instability of the overall > functioning of the queues, which is not the desirable behaviour. Preemption > storm has been covered in the usage guide > <https://yunikorn.apache.org/docs/next/user_guide/preemption_cases#redistribution-of-quota-and-preemption-storm> > doc. Along the way, we realized that the same use case can be addressed > without causing Preemption Storm and also preventing other cases from > causing storms. Solution has been discussed in this > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vfv8XJJsIqlZN3ecyhP2EFeiUSQnY-9GHEi_UJFB-BU/edit?usp=sharing> > document. Please refer to the 2A case in the document in detail as it is > the only case that would be addressed. Not only does this proposed solution > increase chances of freeing up resources for a potential candidate waiting > for resources in a starving queue for a particular situation, it also > follows the same principles of already working cases discussed in 3A & 3B. > 3A & 3B are the cases where one can realize how preemption laws have been > followed strictly. Proposed solution for case 2A follows the same path. > > Please share your thoughts on this. > > Thanks, > Mani > > >
