Hi Ben, Thanks for the feedback! Seems like we're on the same page overall.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Benjamin Mahler <bmah...@apache.org> wrote: > It seems to me that these particular flags are not applicable for > PARTITION_AWARE frameworks, since there is no removal occurring. FWIW, I've still been using the term "removal" in the PARTITION_AWARE branch to describe any situation in which a slave is removed from the set of registered agents in the registry: e.g., both when we mark a slave unreachable (move from "admitted" to "unreachable" list in the registry) and when a slave gracefully disconnects via UnregisterSlaveMessage (remove from "admitted" list). > If we want to support schedulers that react poorly, we can add > per-framework rate limits for unreachable notifications. Operators could > turn these on to deal with specific frameworks that react poorly. Sounds reasonable. I'm inclined to not implement this until we have some evidence that people actually need it. > In situations where the > agent is considered unreachable, we won't offer resources, correct? Correct. Thanks, Neil
