Skip to content
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

doc: add fair-share documentation #536

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

cmoussa1
Copy link
Member

Problem

flux-accounting doesn't really have any in-depth documentation about how fair-share is calculated for a hierarchy of banks and users.


This PR adds some documentation about how fair-share is calculated for a hierarchy of banks and users in flux-accounting. I've also created a small example hierarchy and walked through the process of calculating fair-share for an association.

@cmoussa1 cmoussa1 added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation low priority items that can be worked on at a later date labels Nov 20, 2024
@cmoussa1 cmoussa1 changed the title [WIP] doc: add fair-share documentation doc: add fair-share documentation Nov 26, 2024
@cmoussa1 cmoussa1 marked this pull request as ready for review November 26, 2024 23:16
@cmoussa1 cmoussa1 requested a review from wihobbs December 30, 2024 19:10
Copy link
Member

@wihobbs wihobbs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did your example calculations (though not the weighted walk or all of the users) and got the numbers you did ✅


flux-accounting dynamically adjusts fair-share as resources are consumed.
Historical job usage diminishes in signficance over time, ensuring that
long-term heavy usage does not permanently impact an association's fair-share.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't quite make sense to me -- it seems like the diminishing significance of past data would mean that short term heavy usage would not permanently impact an association's fair share. If an association had long-term (I'm thinking over a span of weeks, months, years) we would want that to diminish their fair-share? Am I missing something?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, I think you're absolutely right. I think I changed the structure of this sentence halfway through to talk about short-term usage versus long-term usage and never actually changed the term. Good catch! I'll change this to short-term

weight at 1.84467. Therefore, ``leaf.3.1`` receives the highest rank of all of
the users. ``leaf.3.2`` follows with the second highest rank, and ``account3``
is now fully sorted. We repeat this process for the rest of the banks in the
hierarchy.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggestion: a sorted table would be really helpful for illustration here


.. code-block:: text

Bank|Username|RawShares|RawUsage|Fairshare
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You might want to turn this into a table too ;) (sorry, I know RST is annoying!)

Problem: flux-accounting doesn't really have any in-depth documentation
about how fair-share is calculated for a hierarchy of banks and users.

Add some documentation about how fair-share is calculated for a
hierarchy of banks and users in flux-accounting. Create an example
hierarchy and walk through the process of calculating fair-share for an
association.
@cmoussa1 cmoussa1 force-pushed the fair-share.documentation branch from 3d571b1 to 6ed796a Compare January 22, 2025 01:23
@cmoussa1
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for reviewing @wihobbs!! I just force-pushed up some changes based on your feedback. Let me know what you think!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation low priority items that can be worked on at a later date
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants