Start tracking a new MemoryMaxMB field that represents the maximum memory a task
may use in the client. This allows tasks to specify a memory reservation (to be
used by scheduler when placing the task) but use excess memory used on the
client if the client has any.
This commit adds the server tracking for the value, and ensures that allocations
AllocatedResource fields include the value.
* Fixup uses of `sanity`
* Remove unnecessary comments.
These checks are better explained by earlier comments about
the context of the test. Per @tgross, moved the tests together
to better reinforce the overall shared context.
* Update nomad/fsm_test.go
* Throw away result of multierror.Append
When given a *multierror.Error, it is mutated, therefore the return
value is not needed.
* Simplify MergeMultierrorWarnings, use StringBuilder
* Hash.Write() never returns an error
* Remove error that was always nil
* Remove error from Resources.Add signature
When this was originally written it could return an error, but that was
refactored away, and callers of it as of today never handle the error.
* Throw away results of io.Copy during Bridge
* Handle errors when computing node class in test
* ar: support opting into binding host ports to default network IP
* fix config plumbing
* plumb node address into network resource
* struct: only handle network resource upgrade path once
The BinPackIter accounted for node reservations twice when scoring nodes
which could bias scores toward nodes with reservations.
Pseudo-code for previous algorithm:
```
proposed = reservedResources + sum(allocsResources)
available = nodeResources - reservedResources
score = 1 - (proposed / available)
```
The node's reserved resources are added to the total resources used by
allocations, and then the node's reserved resources are later
substracted from the node's overall resources.
The new algorithm is:
```
proposed = sum(allocResources)
available = nodeResources - reservedResources
score = 1 - (proposed / available)
```
The node's reserved resources are no longer added to the total resources
used by allocations.
My guess as to how this bug happened is that the resource utilization
variable (`util`) is calculated and returned by the `AllocsFit` function
which needs to take reserved resources into account as a basic
feasibility check.
To avoid re-calculating alloc resource usage (because there may be a
large number of allocs), we reused `util` in the `ScoreFit` function.
`ScoreFit` properly accounts for reserved resources by subtracting them
from the node's overall resources. However since `util` _also_ took
reserved resources into account the score would be incorrect.
Prior to the fix the added test output:
```
Node: reserved Score: 1.0000
Node: reserved2 Score: 1.0000
Node: no-reserved Score: 0.9741
```
The scores being 1.0 for *both* nodes with reserved resources is a good
hint something is wrong as they should receive different scores. Upon
further inspection the double accounting of reserved resources caused
their scores to be >1.0 and clamped.
After the fix the added test outputs:
```
Node: no-reserved Score: 0.9741
Node: reserved Score: 0.9480
Node: reserved2 Score: 0.8717
```
IOPS have been modelled as a resource since Nomad 0.1 but has never
actually been detected and there is no plan in the short term to add
detection. This is because IOPS is a bit simplistic of a unit to define
the performance requirements from the underlying storage system. In its
current state it adds unnecessary confusion and can be removed without
impacting any users. This PR leaves IOPS defined at the jobspec parsing
level and in the api/ resources since these are the two public uses of
the field. These should be considered deprecated and only exist to allow
users to stop using them during the Nomad 0.9.x release. In the future,
there should be no expectation that the field will exist.
Michael Schurter