> On March 14, 2016, 6:51 a.m., Navina Ramesh wrote:
> > samza-yarn/src/main/java/org/apache/samza/job/yarn/ContainerRequestState.java,
> >  line 149
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44775/diff/1/?file=1297033#file1297033line149>
> >
> >     I remember specifically not simplifying the conditions so that we can 
> > enable debug logging to troubleshoot any issues with the allocation logic. 
> > I do agree there is some amount of readability issue here. But I feel that 
> > the log lines are much useful until we stabilize the allocator.

Having said that, I would like to hear the comments from others. I also think 
we need to add unit tests specifically for the conditions that we simplify / 
optimize, because our unit test coverage is pretty low at this point :(


- Navina


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44775/#review123359
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 14, 2016, 6:02 a.m., Jagadish Venkatraman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/44775/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 14, 2016, 6:02 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for samza, Boris Shkolnik, Jake Maes, Yi Pan (Data 
> Infrastructure), Navina Ramesh, and Xinyu Liu.
> 
> 
> Repository: samza
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The current container allocator has some repetitive checks - when it decides 
> to enqueue a container to ANY_HOST. I believe it is a good idea to eliminate 
> those repetitive checks and refactor the allocation logic. It will help in 
> long-term maintainability.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> samza-yarn/src/main/java/org/apache/samza/job/yarn/ContainerRequestState.java 
> 3e3f48ce2b5c0802e8c7c4f09b632df2d2265c12 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44775/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> All unit tests still pass.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jagadish Venkatraman
> 
>

Reply via email to