mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marco Massenzio" <ma...@mesosphere.io>
Subject Re: Review Request 34581: Added oversubscription.proto for QoS Controller and slave communication
Date Fri, 22 May 2015 20:50:59 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/#review84988
-----------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for doing this!
Minor nits (and a design concern) but otherwise looks good.


include/mesos/slave/oversubscription.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/#comment136449>

    nit: s/correction/corrective action
    
    also, prefer "needs to be taken"



include/mesos/slave/oversubscription.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/#comment136451>

    please consider calling this `QosCorrectiveAction`
    (we require CamelCase for our types, in any event; so this would have to be `QosCorrection`)
    
    I'm also not wild about the `QoS` moniker - I'd like this to be a more generic `CorrectiveAction`
message, but happy to go with whatever else others suggest.



include/mesos/slave/oversubscription.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/#comment136450>

    can you define this instead as:
    
    ```
    message ActionInfo {
      optional ExecutorID executor_id = 1;
      optional SlaveID slave_id = 2;
      optional TaskID task_id = 3;
    }
    ```
    or something similar, that makes it more generally applicable?



include/mesos/slave/oversubscription.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/#comment136447>

    I have some concerns about this design - given the Note above, this would imply that we
would have multiple fields, each with its own message type (eg, `Freeze`, `Resize`, etc. etc.)
    
    Can't we just define some sort of base `ActionInfo` type, which may be extensible (maybe,
even have an `ExtraInfo`).
    
    Been a while since I last played with protobuf at Google, but my concern is the potential
growth of fields/types that this approach seem to entail.



src/Makefile.am
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/#comment136452>

    not sure whether this is an artifact of RB, but your tabs seem to be out of line?


- Marco Massenzio


On May 22, 2015, 7:46 p.m., Bartek Plotka wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 22, 2015, 7:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, Szymon Konefal, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2760
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2760
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This proto describes a QoS correction message for particular executor or task.
> It is a generic message between QoS Controller and slave.
> 
> Additionaly, updated Makefile to include this proto during compilation.
> 
> This request updates the https://reviews.apache.org/r/34571/
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/slave/oversubscription.proto PRE-CREATION 
>   src/Makefile.am 34755cf795391c9b8051a5e4acc6caf844984496 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34581/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> * make check
> * run mesos:
> 1) build (make)
> 2) checked that *oversubscription.pb.h* and *oversubscription.pb.cc* are in the proper
directories
> 3) run *mesos-slave*, *mesos-master* and checked if their behaviour is proper
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bartek Plotka
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message