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

Use cluster.scheduler_info rather than cluster.scheduler #73

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 1, 2019

Conversation

mrocklin
Copy link
Member

Supercedes #72

This depends on dask/distributed#2902 , which
adds a Cluster.scheduler_info attribute to clusters which holds
necessary scheduler information. We prefer this over querying a
Scheduler object directly in case that scheduler is not local, as in
increasingly becoming the case.

Supercedes dask#72

This depends on dask/distributed#2902 , which
adds a `Cluster.scheduler_info` attribute to clusters which holds
necessary scheduler information.  We prefer this over querying a
Scheduler object directly in case that scheduler is not local, as in
increasingly becoming the case.
Otherwise we didn't seem to be getting the baseline config, which was
causing errors.
@mrocklin
Copy link
Member Author

mrocklin commented Aug 1, 2019

OK, I think that this is good to go. It should be safe both for old and new releases.

),
cores=sum(ws.ncores for ws in cluster.scheduler.workers.values()),
cores=sum(d["nthreads"] for d in info["workers"].values()),
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is the intended compatibility profile for this? I am getting failures here due to nthreads not being available in my workers with dask v1.2 and distributed v1.28.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

2.0+, but it's fairly easy to go handle this to go back further. I'll push up a small fix.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 I'd be in favor of maintaining 1.0 compatibility, if it's a small check.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ian-r-rose ian-r-rose left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me

@mrocklin mrocklin merged commit 54f717e into dask:master Aug 1, 2019
@mrocklin mrocklin deleted the scheduler-info branch August 1, 2019 02:04
@mrocklin
Copy link
Member Author

mrocklin commented Aug 1, 2019

@ian-r-rose is it safe for me to push out a micro release on the Python side?

@ian-r-rose
Copy link
Collaborator

Yeah, absolutely!

@mrocklin
Copy link
Member Author

mrocklin commented Aug 1, 2019 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants