> On June 4, 2014, 7:12 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/master/http.cpp, lines 543-561
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/diff/2/?file=603297#file603297line543>
> >
> > How about pushing this into slave model?
Yes, putting the "orphan_tasks" in their parent slaves seems more structural.
So do you mean moving this piece of code into model(const Slave& slave) {}?
But I don't know how to get the "master.frameworks" in that function without
changing the interface of the function...
Did I misunderstand what you said?
> On June 4, 2014, 7:12 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/tests/master_tests.cpp, line 2040
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/diff/2/?file=603298#file603298line2040>
> >
> > You probably want to advance the clock here so that the framework
> > re-registers immediately. otherwise, it might take upto a second slowing
> > down this test.
Sweet! Thanks!
> On June 4, 2014, 7:12 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/tests/master_tests.cpp, line 1941
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/diff/2/?file=603298#file603298line1941>
> >
> > kill flags.
Will do.
> On June 4, 2014, 7:12 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/tests/master_tests.cpp, line 1937
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/diff/2/?file=603298#file603298line1937>
> >
> > No need to explicitly create and pass default flags.
Will do.
> On June 4, 2014, 7:12 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/master/http.cpp, line 563
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/diff/2/?file=603297#file603297line563>
> >
> > How about just calling them "unknown_frameworks" or maybe
> > "disconnected_frameworks"? but disconnected is an overloaded term because a
> > framework might be disconnected even when the master doesn't failover.
Yeah, I see. unknown_frameworks seems better IMO. Because I found that the
newly elected master actually "forgets" the framework. Even the framework tried
to re-register with the master, the master will reply a
FrameworkRegisteredMessage.
I don't know if the registerar will be modified later to help the master
memorize the frameworks.
But for now, unknown_frameworks is great. Thanks! Vinod!
> On June 4, 2014, 7:12 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/tests/master_tests.cpp, line 2068
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/diff/2/?file=603298#file603298line2068>
> >
> > nice test!
:D
- Yifan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/#review44738
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2014, 11:58 p.m., Yifan Gu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 3, 2014, 11:58 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Niklas Nielsen, Ross Allen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> This is a patch to add *orphan_tasks* and *not_yet_reregistered_frameworks"
> fields in the state.json. So that users can get more information about what's
> going on when master failover happens.
>
> For the WebUI part, I think that will have Ross to have a look at this later.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/master/http.cpp b565dc6
> src/tests/master_tests.cpp 34df121
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/22223/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added MasterTest.OrphanTasks to test:
> 1, Before the framework re-registers with the master:
> Tasks that belongs to that frameworks will appear in the ["orphan_tasks"]
> field.
> That frameworks will appear in the ["not_yet_reregistered_frameworks"]
> field.
> 2, After the framework re-registers with the master:
> There will be no more orphan tasks and not-yet-reregistered frameworks.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yifan Gu
>
>
