3 ms·

The internal google scheduling system is simply not appropriate for anyone other than Google to use. A huge number of machines, all alike, with a huge number of

by skj 11y ago

The internal google scheduling system is simply not appropriate for anyone other than Google to use. A huge number of machines, all alike, with a huge number of trusted binaries that can be multiplexed onto these machines without fear that they're going to break the jail and cause havoc (since there is a solid trail from source to running artifact). It's just not the reality that other companies exist in.

justicezyx 11y ago
Scheduler is actually one relatively simple piece of the whole picture. If scheduling is a pain, then Kubernetes would just addressed. The fact that Kubernetes did not choose scheduler, means that it is actually not a big problem, at least not the biggest one.
mike_hearn 11y ago
Borg jobs are not trusted! The system sandboxes them, prevents them spying on other jobs data files, and assumes they might abuse system resources in arbitrary ways. The days when all Google machines trusted all Google employees is long in the past.
stonogo 11y ago
That is not an argument against releasing the code. Why would Google assign itself as gatekeeper? I personally could use this code on supercomputers now. I don't work for a supercomputing company; my use case is academic work and computational science. I absolutely have thousands of huge machines that I multiplex trusted binaries to -- and scheduling is not a trivial problem. So what's the real reason nobody gets to see this code?
- thockingoog 11y ago
  The code is literally millions of LoC, all of which needs to be audited for stuff we can't release for whatever reasons. All that code is built upon layer after layer of Google internal stuff. Open-sourcing Borg means open-sourcing Chubby, internal form of gRPC (older), hundreds of libs, monitoring infrastructure, etc. Net result is O(50M) LoC. And when someone sends us a patch - then what? The cost of doing it is simply prohibitive. I'd love to do it, it's just not practical and has no RoI.
  - stonogo 11y ago
    That's a much more sensible reason! If the code is truly Google specific, then I agre. It sounded to me like the code was not released because nobody else has a lot of computers, which I found odd. Thank you for the details!

by skj 11y ago

justicezyx 11y ago

Scheduler is actually one relatively simple piece of the whole picture. If scheduling is a pain, then Kubernetes would just addressed. The fact that Kubernetes did not choose scheduler, means that it is actually not a big problem, at least not the biggest one.

mike_hearn 11y ago

Borg jobs are not trusted! The system sandboxes them, prevents them spying on other jobs data files, and assumes they might abuse system resources in arbitrary ways. The days when all Google machines trusted all Google employees is long in the past.

stonogo 11y ago

That is not an argument against releasing the code. Why would Google assign itself as gatekeeper? I personally could use this code on supercomputers now. I don't work for a supercomputing company; my use case is academic work and computational science. I absolutely have thousands of huge machines that I multiplex trusted binaries to -- and scheduling is not a trivial problem. So what's the real reason nobody gets to see this code?

thockingoog 11y ago
The code is literally millions of LoC, all of which needs to be audited for stuff we can't release for whatever reasons. All that code is built upon layer after layer of Google internal stuff. Open-sourcing Borg means open-sourcing Chubby, internal form of gRPC (older), hundreds of libs, monitoring infrastructure, etc. Net result is O(50M) LoC. And when someone sends us a patch - then what? The cost of doing it is simply prohibitive. I'd love to do it, it's just not practical and has no RoI.
- stonogo 11y ago
  That's a much more sensible reason! If the code is truly Google specific, then I agre. It sounded to me like the code was not released because nobody else has a lot of computers, which I found odd. Thank you for the details!