mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrei Budnik <abud...@mesosphere.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 62212: Send TASK_STARTING from the built-in executors. [1/2]
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:03:37 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/#review185156
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/docker/executor.cpp
Lines 141 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/#comment261443>

    Do we really need to send `TASK_STARTING`, if we know that right after sending `TASK_STARTING`,
`launchTask` might send `TASK_FAILED`, e.g. in case of following checks:
    ```c++
    if (run.isSome()) {
     // ...
     status.set_state(TASK_FAILED);
    }
    ...
    if (runOptions.isError()) {
     // ...
     status.set_state(TASK_FAILED);
    }
    ```
    What is the semantics of `TASK_STARTING` - should an executor send it always and unconditionally,
or can we omit `TASK_STARTING` when we are pretty sure that we won't be able to launch a task?
    Omitting `TASK_STARTING` before sending `TASK_FAILED` might be a good optimization, if
it's not important to send `TASK_STARTING` first.



src/launcher/default_executor.cpp
Lines 379 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/#comment261448>

    Why `DefaultExecutor::createTaskStatus` used instead of `protobuf::createTaskStatus`?
    Do we really need to set `executor_id` for `TASK_STARTING` status update? If so, then
why don't we set `executor_id` in other built-in executors for consistency?



src/launcher/executor.cpp
Lines 512 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/#comment261445>

    What happens if a buggy scheduler will try to launch multiple tasks with same `task_id`
using a single `command` executor? I guess, `command` executor will send `TASK_STARTING`,
then `TASK_FAILED`. If so, then is it ok to have multiple `TASK_STARTING` status updates (having
different timestamps)?


- Andrei Budnik


On Sept. 11, 2017, 9:16 a.m., Benno Evers wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 11, 2017, 9:16 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Alexander Rukletsov.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7941
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7941
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This gives schedulers more information about a tasks status,
> in particular it gives a better estimate of a tasks start time
> and helps differentiating between tasks stuck in TASK_STAGING
> and tasks stuck in TASK_STARTING.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   docs/high-availability-framework-guide.md 73743aba31f9d0ca827d318e2ecb4752a91b1be0

>   src/docker/executor.cpp e9949f652cd8527991ebfdfbf14e68b4c958fe79 
>   src/launcher/default_executor.cpp 106b7f2e0244d211c66b237b5d1c51f43fc6e529 
>   src/launcher/executor.cpp 951597b576b4912541dd87d52dcb981393e58082 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benno Evers
> 
>


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