In the log you posted, it seems total cpus is also 2 rather than 1, but it
seem there are 4 allocated cpus (2 non-revocable and 2 revocable)?
I0121 17:08:09.303431 4284416 hierarchical.cpp:528] Slave
f2d8b550-ed52-44a4-a35a-1fff81d41391-S0 (9.181.90.153) updated with
oversubscribed resources (total: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
ports(*):[31000-32000], allocated: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
ports(*):[31000-32000]; *cpus(*){REV}:2*)
Thanks,
Qian Zhang
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Klaus Ma <klaus1982...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> When I double-check the feature interaction between Optimistic Offer Phase
> 1 & Oversubscription, I found an issue that `allocated` may have more
> resources then `total` in allocator when enable Oversubscription. I'd like
> to get your input on whether this is design behaviour, although the impact
> is low: 1.) allocator will not offer this delta resources, 2) QoS
> Controller will correct it later by killing the executor. Personally, I'd
> like to keep this assumption in allocator: slave.total always contains
> slave.allocated.
>
> Here's the steps:
>
> T1: in cluster, cpus=2: one is revocable and the other one is nonRevocable
> T2: framework1 get offer cpus=2, launch task but estimator report empty
> resources before executor launched
> T3: slave.total is updated to cpus=1 in
> HierarchicalAllocatorProcess::updateSlave
> T4: in allocate(), slave.total (cpus=1) < slave.allocated (cpus=2)
>
> Here's the log I got:
>
> I0121 17:08:09.303431 4284416 hierarchical.cpp:528] Slave
> f2d8b550-ed52-44a4-a35a-1fff81d41391-S0 (9.181.90.153) updated with
> oversubscribed resources (total: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> ports(*):[31000-32000], allocated: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> ports(*):[31000-32000]; *cpus(*){REV}:2*)
>
> Please refer to MESOS-4442 for more detail.
>
> ----
> Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> Platform OpenSource Technology, STG, IBM GCG
> +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
>
