Wow, thanks for the great information everyone.
David – I don't know how we'll make it pluggable, I was thinking users
could provide functions that return a set of constraints. And there
would probably be a cost function that users could override as well.
On Oct 24, 3:26 pm, Jamie Brandon
wrote:
Ok, clearly I've not been keeping up, sorry :)
On 24 October 2012 18:17, David Nolen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Jamie Brandon
> wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like something that would benefit from good constraint
>> propagation. If I remember correctly, core.logic only support
>> propaga
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Jamie Brandon wrote:
> It sounds like something that would benefit from good constraint
> propagation. If I remember correctly, core.logic only support
> propagating equality/inequality constraints which can be pretty slow
> for exploring large domains. Something
It sounds like something that would benefit from good constraint
propagation. If I remember correctly, core.logic only support
propagating equality/inequality constraints which can be pretty slow
for exploring large domains. Something like gecode
(http://www.gecode.org) might be a better fit if you
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
> Nathan:
>
> I don't know core.logic's capabilities, and I haven't looked at the kinds
> of constraints you describe in enough detail to say for sure, but my
> initial reaction is that linear/integer programming might be a better fit.
>
I'm
Nathan:
I don't know core.logic's capabilities, and I haven't looked at the kinds of
constraints you describe in enough detail to say for sure, but my initial
reaction is that linear/integer programming might be a better fit.
It has been about 5-10 years, but in the past I've had success with r
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM, nathanmarz wrote:
> Cool, thanks for the quick response. We'll be looking into this pretty
> soon. I ultimately want the logic engine itself being exposed to users
> so they can add their own company-specific constraints to resource
> scheduling – which will be to
On 10/24/12 2:56 PM, nathanmarz wrote:
I'm looking into rewriting Storm's resource scheduler using
core.logic. I want to be able to say constraints like:
1. Topology A's slots should be <= 10 and as close to 10 as possible
(minimize the delta between assigned slots and 10)
2. All topologies shou
Cool, thanks for the quick response. We'll be looking into this pretty
soon. I ultimately want the logic engine itself being exposed to users
so they can add their own company-specific constraints to resource
scheduling – which will be totally badass. If you're interested in
tracking this, I opened
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:56 PM, nathanmarz wrote:
> I'm looking into rewriting Storm's resource scheduler using
> core.logic. I want to be able to say constraints like:
>
> 1. Topology A's slots should be <= 10 and as close to 10 as possible
> (minimize the delta between assigned slots and 10)
>
I'm looking into rewriting Storm's resource scheduler using
core.logic. I want to be able to say constraints like:
1. Topology A's slots should be <= 10 and as close to 10 as possible
(minimize the delta between assigned slots and 10)
2. All topologies should use less than 200 CPU's and less than
11 matches
Mail list logo
