-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14663/#review27357
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/14663/#comment53220>

    In these spots we can touch (call utime) on the file before calling the 
single garbageCollect.



src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/14663/#comment53218>

    As discussed, we can use a single garbageCollect with no bool that 
schedules based on your formula:
    
    delay = flags.gc_delay - Clock::now().duration() + Seconds(mtime.get());
    
    Then we simply touch the file in those places where you call this with 
false. I think that makes it more clear as to what is happening. The single 
formula works for this case since (Clock::now.duration() - Seconds(mtime.get()) 
~= 0 when we've just touched the file.



src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/14663/#comment53219>

    can you do:
    
    flags.gc_delay - (Clock::now().duration() - Seconds(mtime.get())
    
    This helps me read that you're subtracting the age of the mtime from the 
gc_delay.


- Ben Mahler


On Oct. 16, 2013, 12:41 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/14663/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 16, 2013, 12:41 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-742
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-742
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Old recovered directories are now gc'ed based on modification time.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp 22fb74b71a0f52d9d67b92ecc286fa8d350e41a4 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp debb2f4ce05fbfec450197e68bc8a0c78f1d0adf 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14663/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>

Reply via email to