mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benjamin Hindman" <b...@berkeley.edu>
Subject Re: Review Request 35433: CHECK that checkpointed resources exist on the slave.
Date Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:46:34 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review87857
-----------------------------------------------------------


Just so I understand, does this mean if we happen to get in the unfortunate situation where
a slave has neglected to get the dynamic reservation because it was just starting up and then
it gets the task launch it will shutdown the slave because the CHECK will fail? I would expect
the slave to simply send a TASK_LOST. Said another way, this is not an assertion our code
guarantees. If instead we were waiting for some kind of an ack from the slave that it received
the dynamic reservation before it send the task launch then a CHECK would make sense.

- Benjamin Hindman


On June 13, 2015, 9:43 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 13, 2015, 9:43 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> No bug was observed (yet), but realized I forgot about this in the dynamic reservations
patches.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 9af69d8f0b28c9441c684886c52320378f9b2869 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>


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