Ciao scheduler is the SSNTP server that runs in the control plane to broker a ciao based cloud.
In addressing the broader problem of dispatching a workload for a user, ciao splits the problem:
+--------------+ +------------+ | ciao-webui | | ciao-cli | +--------------+ +------------+ | | +--------------+ | controller | +--------------+ | +--------------+ | scheduler | +--------------+ | | | +----------+ | +----------+ | launcher | | | launcher | +----------+ | +----------+ | +----------+ | launcher | +----------+
At the top level, ciao-webui (https://github.com/01org/ciao-webui), ciao-cli (https://github.com/01org/ciao/tree/master/ciao-cli) and ciao-controller (https://github.com/01org/ciao/tree/master/ciao-controller) are responsible for interacting with the user. Ciao-controller enforces policy, checking that the users' actions are allowed. For allowed actions, ciao-controller sends SSNTP command frames down to ciao-scheduler.
At the lowest level, ciao-launcher (https://github.com/01org/ciao/tree/master/ciao-launcher) is running on each compute node. It connects to the ciao-scheduler and sends node level statistics regularly so that the scheduler always knows the current resource state of the cluster. The launchers also send up statistics for each running workload, but scheduler does not pay attention to these and merely forwards them up the stack to ciao-controller.
This layered design leaves a very lean, scalable scheduler in the middle, where ciao-scheduler's primary task is to take a new workload description and find a fit for it in the cluster. Performing this task entails a search across only in-memory, known up-to-date data, and is done VERY VERY QUICKLY.
Ciao-scheduler explicitly does not attempt to find the best fit for a workload.
We bias towards speed of dispatching and simplicity of implementation over absolute optimality.
Aiming for optimality puts us on a slippery slope which at the extreme could mean locking all state in the entire cluster, collecting and analyzing the locked state, making a decision and then unlocking the state. This will have bad performance, both in terms of latency to start an individual workload and for overall throughput when launching many workloads.
We also assume that while a cloud administrator surely has cost constraints, they are unlikely to always run a general compute cloud at the extreme edge of capacity. If they are providing a service for users, their users will expect a reasonable response time for new work orders and that in turn implies there is indeed capacity for new work.
Finding the best fit is more important if resources are highly constrained and you want to make an attempt to give future workloads (whose specific nature is yet unknown) a better chance of succeeding. Again though, attempting to address future unknowns adds complexity to the code, incurs latencies and hinders scalability.
Today a compute node that has no remaining capacity (modulo a buffer amount for the launcher and host OS's stability) will report that it is full and the scheduler will not dispatch work to that node. As a last resort, ciao-scheduler will return a "cloud full" status to ciao-controller if no compute nodes have capacity to do work.
In the initial implementation, the scheduling choice focuses primarily on RAM, disk and CPU availability (see the "Resource" enumeration type in the START payload at https://github.com/01org/ciao/blob/master/payloads/start.go for more details) on compute nodes relative to the requested workload start. This list of tracked resource types will grow over time to encompass many more compute node and workload characteristics. We don't expect that to significantly impact the time needed to make a scheduling choice. We have designed throughout ciao to scale.
Our goal is to make scheduling choices in the order of microseconds. While we haven't yet tested on extremely large clusters, conceptually one should expect that searching an in-memory data structure containing many thousands of nodes' resource data should not take more than milliseconds. Even if each node is a structure of a thousand unique resource statistics. And even if the top structure is only a simple linked list. Walking a list of thousands of elements and doing thousands of string compares for each element of the list is not a deeply computationally complex act.
For typical clouds today and in the foreseeable future, we expect our implementation will scale.
The nature of the launcher agents checking in with scheduler to update their node statistics and request work means that the scheduler always has an up-to-date, in-memory representation of the cluster. No explicit persistence of this data is required. The scheduler can crash and restart, or be stopped and updated and restarted, and launcher agents will simply reconnect and keep on continually updating the scheduler of any changes in their node statistics.
Ciao-scheduler currently implements an extremely trivial algorithm to prefer not using the most-recently-used compute node. This is inexpensive and leads to sufficient spread of new workloads across a cluster.