This PR implements a new "System Batch" scheduler type. Jobs can
make use of this new scheduler by setting their type to 'sysbatch'.
Like the name implies, sysbatch can be thought of as a hybrid between
system and batch jobs - it is for running short lived jobs intended to
run on every compatible node in the cluster.
As with batch jobs, sysbatch jobs can also be periodic and/or parameterized
dispatch jobs. A sysbatch job is considered complete when it has been run
on all compatible nodes until reaching a terminal state (success or failed
on retries).
Feasibility and preemption are governed the same as with system jobs. In
this PR, the update stanza is not yet supported. The update stanza is sill
limited in functionality for the underlying system scheduler, and is
not useful yet for sysbatch jobs. Further work in #4740 will improve
support for the update stanza and deployments.
Closes#2527
Add a `PerAlloc` field to volume requests that directs the scheduler to test
feasibility for volumes with a source ID that includes the allocation index
suffix (ex. `[0]`), rather than the exact source ID.
Read the `PerAlloc` field when making the volume claim at the client to
determine if the allocation index suffix (ex. `[0]`) should be added to the
volume source ID.
* 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
adds in oss components to support enterprise multi-vault namespace feature
upgrade specific doc on vault multi-namespaces
vault docs
update test to reflect new error
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
```
Denormalize jobs in AppendAllocs:
AppendAlloc was originally only ever called for inplace upgrades and new
allocations. Both these code paths would remove the job from the
allocation. Now we use this to also add fields such as FollowupEvalID
which did not normalize the job. This is only a performance enhancement.
Ignore terminal allocs:
Failed allocations are annotated with the followup Eval ID when one is
created to replace the failed allocation. However, in the plan applier,
when we check if allocations fit, these terminal allocations were not
filtered. This could result in the plan being rejected if the node would
be overcommited if the terminal allocations resources were considered.
