Repository navigation
Scheduler Guarantees #12
Description
Activity
Actually, the more that I think about this, the more that the current task spec's classification of deterministic/nondestructive/destructive seems possibly correct from the distributed scheduler's POV 🤔
It's possible that the main problem with the current version is that it privileges
ipvm/wasmover all else (almost with an attitude of "the gross nondeterministic stuff that we can't trust over inipvm/effect").ipvm/wasmhas guarantees beyond Wasm: it's the deterministic subset, with gas accounting, etc. But if this spec intends to be a general framework that we can all align on, it's probably more inviting as something along the lines of:{ "type": "ipvm/task", "version": "0.1.0", "safety": "deterministic", "on": "ipvm/wasm", "using": "Qm12345", // Wasm module "run": { "args": [/*...*/] } }
{ "type": "ipvm/task", "version": "0.1.0", "safety": "nondestructive", "on": "bacalhau/docker", "using": "Qm12345", // Docker container "run": { // "docker": "stuff here", "args": [/*...*/] } }
Though the above is of course not BFT, since I can mismatch:
{ "type": "ipvm/task", "version": "0.1.0", "safety": "deterministic", // Asserted deterministic, but... "on": "web", "using": "https://google.com", // ...not deterministic! "run": { "crud": "get" } }
I had some thoughts on this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Byo5Daw1q7OxgR-945n3F3yrZuC29UmiNpMdjBv_CBs/edit#heading=h.66mcybtbgf3
Broadly: instead of trying to define a single flag which represents the level of risk (according to some definition), allow users to detail the actual unsafe capabilities they require to run the task. Although now that I've written it out... it sounds a lot like Effects...
Reacted by Brooklyn Zelenka...although that's at odds with what you're writing above about not wanting complex config.
It feels like the type and the safety form a tuple that different networks will support. IPVM will support
("ipvm/wasm", "desterministic")and so will Bacalhau, which will also support("docker", "nondestructive")and maybe one day("docker", "deterministic").Hmm, this is going to need to sit and stew for a while.
Thanks for the thoughts!!
I apologize for the horrible sketch, but from some noodling yesterday:
...same as...
| Destructive | Verifiable | Idempotent | |-------------|------------|------------| Pure Function | No | Yes | Yes | Resolve CID | No | Yes | No | HTTP GET | No | No | No | HTTP PUT | Yes | No | Yes | Send Email | Yes | No | No |(It's technically a trilemma, but I don't think particularly useful to think about in those terms. There's only 5 possible states in practice)
For the distributed scheduler, we only care about idempotence and destructivity. In IPVM, either verifiability or attestation (oracle) is required, so we can ignore that for the purposes of orchestration.
This brings us really cleanly into something akin to CQRS (isolate destructive actions) plus atomics.
Lines 39 to 77 in 31b1142
We can probably infer the idempotence from the ability, such as
http/putvshttp/post.I'll have lots of writing about this in the WIP spec shortly!
In the state of #8 at time of writing, tasks are classified as
ipvm/wasmandipvm/effect. This is almost certainly wrong.From chatting with @lukemarsden & @simonwo earlier, what we probably actually care about is:
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.