search

perfsonar / bwctl

A scheduling and policy framework for measurement tools
Apache License 2.0
16 stars 6 forks source link

bwctl priorities #2

Closed arlake228 closed 3 years ago

arlake228 commented 9 years ago

From @arlake228 on March 14, 2015 12:5

Original issue 860 created by arlake228 on 2014-03-12T16:23:18.000Z:

> I was chatting with Eli about an idea. > > Currently, one often has to wait 5 minutes for a bwctl test to run. > Could we give 'interactive' tests priority in the queue over 'scheduled tests? > > e.g.: bwmaster could set a flag that tells the bwctld server "I'm a > scheduled test", and let interactive tests run before me. > > Would this be a fairly simple change?

It should be possible to end the session, and pass along that they were preempted so that bwctl doesn’t wait an entire iteration before trying again (i.e. it does an immediate reschedule). The big difficulty comes in the semantics of defining high and low priority, and how preemption would occur. My tentative thought are 3 levels of priority:

1) low priority 2) high priority 3) unspecified priority

Things marked as low priority could be preempted by things marked as high priority (but not unspecified priority). Bwctl’s default would either be unspecified or high priority, and when a repeated test (i.e. -I) is specified it’d default to low-priority. There’d be knobs to specify low priority, unspecified or high priority directly. Legacy clients would be “unspecified priority”, pretty much like they are now. Bwctld could get some limit options to allow specifying who can set high priority, as well as a config option to ignore it completely.

It may be on the non-trivial side to actual code these semantics into bwctld, but protocol-wise, it’s feasible.

Copied from original issue: perfsonar/project#858

arlake228 commented 9 years ago

Comment #1 originally posted by arlake228 on 2014-03-23T20:37:04.000Z:

<empty>

arlake228 commented 9 years ago

Comment #2 originally posted by arlake228 on 2014-04-21T13:28:03.000Z:

We gotten several more requests for this option. I'd like to bump this up to 3.4 if thats feasible.

arlake228 commented 9 years ago

Comment #3 originally posted by arlake228 on 2014-05-06T18:22:03.000Z:

<empty>

arlake228 commented 9 years ago

Comment #4 originally posted by arlake228 on 2015-01-27T15:20:53.000Z:

<empty>