Skip to content

Scheduler Guarantees #12

@expede

Description

@expede

In the state of #8 at time of writing, tasks are classified as ipvm/wasm and ipvm/effect. This is almost certainly wrong.

From chatting with @lukemarsden & @simonwo earlier, what we probably actually care about is:

  1. Signalling the kind of thing to be run (Wasm, Docker, HTTP, etc)
  2. Under which assumptions (e.g. deterministic Wasm subset, has direct disk access, etc)
  3. Scheduler guarantees (can be safely retried, needs oracle attestation, needs a job lock, must be reproducible for verification, etc)

I think that it's possible to do this by classification rather than writing a config file that could be complex and self-contradictory (fully deterministic and direct disk access).

The easy one is a delineation between pure computation and anything stateful. Docker falls into the stateful bucket itself, so we cannot isolate its effects, and thus oracle attestation is the level of reproducibility (low). But Bacalhau is "safe" to run in the sense that it doesn't produce destructive effects (it's "nondestructive" in the current WIP classification). It does depend on the external world for randomness and time and so on, but you could "safely" schedule these in sequence or parallel without breaking that contract.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions