Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 1, 2021. It is now read-only.

docker compose setup#15

Open
pradykaushik wants to merge 5 commits intospdfg:masterfrom
pradykaushik:issues/issue-13-docker-compose-setup
Open

docker compose setup#15
pradykaushik wants to merge 5 commits intospdfg:masterfrom
pradykaushik:issues/issue-13-docker-compose-setup

Conversation

@pradykaushik
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@pradykaushik pradykaushik commented Nov 8, 2019

  1. Added Dockerfile to help containerize Elektron.
  2. Added docker-compose yaml file to setup mesos cluster for elektron.

The docker image tagged rdelvalle/mesos-master:1.5.1 was used as the mesos master.
As the mesos agent for Elektron requires additional software (docker, PCP) pkaushi1/mesos-agent-elektron:1.5.1 was built using rdelvalle/mesos:1.5.1 as the base image.

Use the below commands to run elektron.

docker-compose run elektron

@pradykaushik
docker-compose setup
df4952f 
Updated .gitignore to ignore test log dirs from project.

HOST_IP env var is used by entrypoint script to populate
the PCP config.
The entrypoint script does the following.
1. construct the PCP config file using the value of the env var
	HOST_IP.
2. run elektron by providing all the basic command-line options.

Added build and run instructions in the README. These include
instructions to run elektron on bare-metal or using docker-compose.
@pradykaushik
fixed logdir prefix for consistency with Dockerfile
b242888
@pradykaushik
added license
b29bbb2
@pradykaushik
added license
f41f7ef
@pradykaushik pradykaushik added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request labels Nov 8, 2019
@pradykaushik pradykaushik requested a review from ridv November 8, 2019 00:17
@pradykaushik pradykaushik mentioned this pull request Nov 8, 2019
Open
ridv
ridv reviewed Nov 8, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment thread docker-compose.yaml Outdated
- zk

mesos-agent:
image: pkaushi1/mesos-agent-elektron:1.5.1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ridv ridv Nov 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We own the organization spdf at dockerhub https://hub.docker.com/orgs/spdf/repositories

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@pradykaushik pradykaushik Nov 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good to know. I'll push the image there then.

@ridv
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ridv commented Nov 8, 2019

Were you able to find a workaround for getting RAPL metrics?

@pradykaushik
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

pradykaushik commented Nov 8, 2019

Were you able to find a workaround for getting RAPL metrics?

Not yet. Currently, the CPU and Memory utilization is measured of the physical host (not the containers).
There are multiple ways forward from here.

  1. If we stick to the current approach (the one in the PR), then it would require PCP to be installed on the host machine. Definitely not the ideal scenario.
  2. If we want to monitor the CPU and Memory utilization of the docker containers then we could do so by using pmdadocker and monitoring the below metrics. However, note that PCP would still need to be installed on the host machine. If we want to measure RAPL metrics, we would need to pull data from the host machine.
    - docker.cpu_stats.cpu_usage.usage_in_kernelmode
    - docker.cpu_stats.cpu_usage.usage_in_usermode
    - docker.memory_stats.usage
  3. If we want to refrain from having to install anything on the host machine, then I believe the only way forward is to read off a PCP log file baked into the image (this is the approach you suggested the other day). I can see two advantages with this.
    - Testing becomes easier as now we have a fixed PCP log.
    - Power measurements can also be part of the PCP log file.
    If we go with option 3, it would not require installation of PCP on the host machine.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

1 more reviewer

@ridv ridv ridv left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@ridv ridv

@pradykaushik pradykaushik

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@pradykaushik @ridv