Bump.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Benjamin Mahler <[email protected] > wrote: > Vinod and I had a discussion as a result of Brenden's review: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/11814 > > The webui is broken for command executors because the master does not know > the executor ID for the tasks using a command executor. This is because the > Task protobuf only has the executor_id field, no other field to indicate > the presence of the command executor. > > It seems the slave also doesn't set the Task.executor_id for command > executors, thus relying on it being optionally set in executorTerminated() > to determine whether the task used a command executor. > > This all seems pretty messy, a few things to consider: > > 1) Should we simply always set the Task.executor_id for these tasks? The > master could do so currently, but there would be an implicit contract that > the slave and master both use the task id as the executor id. > > 2) We can add a boolean is_command_executor to Task, so that both the > master and slave can set the field, and the slave can use the boolean in > executorTerminated() to determine whether the task used a command executor. > > 3) Alternatively, we can add a /frameworks/FID/tasks/TID url format for > the broken links on the master webui, so that we can search for the task in > the slave state to locate its executor. >
