> On Dec. 11, 2012, 10:44 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 104 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/8171/diff/4/?file=235830#file235830line104> > > > > The problem with doing these checks is that it makes it hard to create > > "simulations" of clusters where some slaves might be reporting more CPUs > > than are physically available.
Yes, that's a good point. Perhaps we should just isolate the check to the cgroups isolation module initialization. i.e. when cpuset is enabled, ensure the slave doesn't think there are more cpus than available (this is cause a CHECK to fail when filling up the cpusets if it doesn't hold) - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8171/#review14320 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 7, 2012, 7:25 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/8171/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 7, 2012, 7:25 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > Now we properly set cpu/mem/disk/ports based on what's missing in slave flags. > > Also moved usage from os to fs. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.cpp 7deb4574943aae4cfc5da5d6b3f600042686975f > src/tests/exception_tests.cpp 13355d08788432ed07679daf24c2d74cc12a7f11 > third_party/libprocess/include/stout/fs.hpp > 9e62a1b91bc9fac092818ffb3c8bcec46b0bd26d > third_party/libprocess/include/stout/os.hpp > 76e5e0624af36a0021755fb4acf7f76bfb81a823 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8171/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
