-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
I did your example calculations (though not the weighted walk or all of the users) and got the numbers you did ✅
doc/components/fair-share.rst
Outdated
|
||
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. |
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.
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?
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.
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
doc/components/fair-share.rst
Outdated
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. |
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.
Suggestion: a sorted table would be really helpful for illustration here
doc/components/fair-share.rst
Outdated
|
||
.. code-block:: text | ||
|
||
Bank|Username|RawShares|RawUsage|Fairshare |
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.
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.
3d571b1
to
6ed796a
Compare
Thanks for reviewing @wihobbs!! I just force-pushed up some changes based on your feedback. Let me know what you think! |
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.