-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 813
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Regression] Fleet scale down didn't adhere to Packed Scheduling #638
Merged
markmandel
merged 2 commits into
googleforgames:master
from
markmandel:bug/regression-packed
Mar 15, 2019
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
File renamed without changes.
File renamed without changes.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not sure why you need this change? just sort accordingly where we were sorting before?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we took this away, we would need to push everything that could be deleted into
toDelete
, sort that and then trim down to min(deletedCount
, `maxDeletions) from there.Also, if there are GameServers that are in Error on Unhealthy states, they may get pushed back / would need to be specially sorted to the front.
TL;DR - I think it makes the code harder to read, and harder to keep separate and test to track everything in toDelete.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that's exactly what we do today, I don't think performance is a problem. Sorting 10000 things on a modern CPU is basically nothing (they can do billions of things per second per core...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From my understanding of the code, we were getting a random sample of gameservers to delete (since and informer list is in random order) - and then sorting that random set after the fact - which doesn't.
Whereas this is tracking everything that could be deleted, and then sorting from there, which gives us a stronger guarantee of order of deletion by removing the random aspect.
Even if I did remove
potentialAllocations
, I'm just replacing it withtoDelete
but the code wouldn't be the same.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry and to be clear - this isn't a performance issue - it's that the current implementation provides us with a random set of gameservers to delete, there's no way to guarantee anything near to consistent delete ordering when running Packed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
also updated back in the newest sort for Distributed 👍