From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6DDF8894
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:10:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 67EA81C790
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:09:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:09:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 766AB44AE5;
Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:09:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <fc8c7153-8cc9-32f2-aebd-091551bf4c0a@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:09:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com,
"DERUMIER, Alexandre" <Alexandre.DERUMIER@groupe-cyllene.com>
References: <20221110143800.98047-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20221110143800.98047-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<df3321324490c6a67b576735eaa4ae614914f6d9.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <df3321324490c6a67b576735eaa4ae614914f6d9.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL 0.028 Adjusted
score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=BAYES_00 -1.9
Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
=?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?record=0A=09?=URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query
to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox-resource-scheduling 1/3] initial
commit
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:10:19 -0000
Am 15.11.22 um 16:39 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre:
> Thanks Fiona for your hard work on this !
>
> I'm going to review/test them this week.
>
> I'm not an expert in Rust, but I think I'll be able to read the code
>
Thank you for pushing the idea in the first place! Let's hope we can
re-use this infrastructure to get to a real dynamic balancer down the
line :)
>
> Just a question, how do you choose the weight of different criteria ?
>
> I think in the second patch, I see:
>
> + static ref PVE_HA_TOPSIS_CRITERIA: TopsisCriteria<N_CRITERIA> =
> TopsisCriteria::new([
> + TopsisCriterion::new("average CPU".to_string(), -1.0),
> + TopsisCriterion::new("highest CPU".to_string(), -2.0),
> + TopsisCriterion::new("average memory".to_string(), -5.0),
> + TopsisCriterion::new("highest memory".to_string(), -10.0),
> + ])
>
>
> Is is arbitrary values ?
Yes, it's arbitrary. Thomas suggested that memory should be much more
important, because it's "hard" limited compared to CPU time. Average
will mostly be relevant when there is already a highly-commited node.
Not overcommitting nodes in the first place should take precedence over
that of course, so highest is more important than average.
>
> if you look at my previous patch series,
> https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2022-April/052779.html
>
> I have also implement the AHP algo. (from AHP-TOPSIS), which is really
> usefull to find weights for criteria, when you begin to have a lot of
> criterias, giving priority in a matrix between each criterias.
>
> here a youtube video about the math:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4T70o8gjlk&t=456s
>
>
> (I had implemented AHP to dynamic find the weights on service start, we
> the weight could be compute once, and set statically)
Yes, I mention this in the cover letter. We can still implement it later
if we want to. It's true that with AHP you only have to choose pairwise
weights, but in a way it doesn't make the task fundamentally easier,
because you have to guess n(n-1)/2 arbitrary values rather than n
arbitrary values ;)