feat(nodeScaleDownTime): add a new metric to track unprocessed nodes during scaleDown #8614
Conversation
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
|
|
Welcome @shaikenov! |
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: no
|
Hi @shaikenov. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: kada2004, shaikenov The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
shaikenov
force-pushed
the
shaikenov-scaledown-unprocessed-node-tracking
branch
from
b9e7969 to
86a98d1
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
shaikenov
force-pushed
the
shaikenov-scaledown-unprocessed-node-tracking
branch
from
86a98d1 to
0457f73
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
shaikenov
force-pushed
the
shaikenov-scaledown-unprocessed-node-tracking
branch
from
0457f73 to
c2756ca
Compare
shaikenov
force-pushed
the
shaikenov-scaledown-unprocessed-node-tracking
branch
from
c2756ca to
a279f58
Compare
shaikenov
force-pushed
the
shaikenov-scaledown-unprocessed-node-tracking
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e5f5131 to
65b09dd
Compare
| timestamp = timestamp.Add(1 * time.Second) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.update(tc.unprocessedNodes[0], timestamp), tc.wantLongestScaleDownEvalTime[0]) | ||
| if tc.unprocessedNodes[0] == nil { | ||
| start = timestamp | ||
| } | ||
| timestamp = timestamp.Add(1 * time.Second) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.update(tc.unprocessedNodes[1], timestamp), tc.wantLongestScaleDownEvalTime[1]) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, len(longestScaleDownEvalT.nodeNamesWithTimeStamps), len(tc.unprocessedNodes[1])) | ||
| for _, val := range longestScaleDownEvalT.nodeNamesWithTimeStamps { | ||
| assert.Equal(t, val, start) | ||
| } | ||
| timestamp = timestamp.Add(1 * time.Second) | ||
| currentLastEvalTime := longestScaleDownEvalT.lastEvalTime | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.update(tc.unprocessedNodes[2], timestamp), tc.wantLongestScaleDownEvalTime[2]) // longestTime is for node n2 | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.get("n1"), longestScaleDownEvalT.lastEvalTime) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.get("n2"), start) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.get("n3"), currentLastEvalTime) // timestamp for new nodes is the default time before update | ||
| timestamp = timestamp.Add(1 * time.Second) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.update(tc.unprocessedNodes[3], timestamp), tc.wantLongestScaleDownEvalTime[3]) // leftover from the previous iteration is time for node n2 | ||
| timestamp = timestamp.Add(1 * time.Second) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.update(tc.unprocessedNodes[4], timestamp), tc.wantLongestScaleDownEvalTime[4]) // no leftover, so the longestTime will be 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: I think some of these checks are examining implementation details; removing them would simplify things significantly:
iterations:= len(unprocessedNodes)
for i range iterations {
time += 1 sec
assert.Equal(t, longestScaleDownEvalT.update(tc.unprocessedNodes[i], time), tc.wantLongestScaleDownEvalTime[i])
}
| name string | ||
| maxParallel int | ||
| isSimulationTimeout bool | ||
| wantUnprocessedNodes int |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Typically want params are last ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, did not notice it before
| }, []string{"instance_type", "cpu_count", "namespace_count"}, | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| longestLastScaleDownEvalDuration = k8smetrics.NewGauge( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: If you look at other metrics names are aligned and here: longestLastScaleDownEvalDuration != longest_unneeded_node_scale_down_eval_duration_seconds
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, did not notice it before
… nodes during scaleDown
shaikenov
force-pushed
the
shaikenov-scaledown-unprocessed-node-tracking
branch
from
65b09dd to
716b1c3
Compare
5 participants
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds a new metric to the exported prometheus metrics list: LongestNodeScaleDownTime
We want to track all the nodes that were marked as unneeded, but were unprocessed during the ScaleDown. If a node was unneeded, but unprocessed multiple times consecutively, we store only the earliest time it happened. The difference between the current time and the earliest time among all unprocessed nodes will give the longest time. This time can give us an indication of possible throttling and helps to better monitor what happens during ScaleDown.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
None
Special notes for your reviewer: this is a draft PR, work is still in progress
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:
None