Open Stack

On Tue, Apr 18 2017, gordon chung wrote:

> do we want it configurable? tbh, would anyway one configure it or know 
> how to configure it? even for us, we're just guessing somewhat.lol i'm 
> going to leave it static for now.

I think we want it to be configurable, though most people would probably
not tweak it. But I can imagine some setups where increasing it would
make sure that.
There's some sense of exposing it anyway, even if it does not change
much. For example, we never exposed TASKS_PER_WORKER but in the end it
seems the 16 value is not optimal. But since we did not expose it,
there's barely no way for tester to try to tweak it and see what value
works best. :)

> this is not really free. choosing hashring means we will have idle 
> workers and more complexity of figuring out what each of the other 
> agents look like in group. it's a trade-off (especially considering how 
> few keys to nodes we have) which is why i brought up question.

You're right, it's a trade-off. I think we can go with the non-hashring
approach for now, that you implemented, and see how if/how we need to
evolve it. It seems to be better than the current scheduling anyway.

> i'll be honest, i'll probably still switch back to hashring... but want 
> to make sure we're not just thinking hashring only.

You're completely right, we needed to discuss that anyway. All your
patches version and tries build up our knowledge and expertise on the
subject, so it was definitely worth the effort, and kudos go to you for
taking that job!

What will probably make you go back to hashring?

-- 
Julien Danjou
# Free Software hacker
# https://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170418/7758df4d/attachment.sig>