On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > I like this. I think this is the most straightforward to implement. We can > enforce the contract by having a helper function that both master and slave > use to get the executor id from task info? > > >> 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. >>> >>> Not sure how this solves the problem that you are trying to solve? > This would ideally be included alongside 1. > > > >> 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. >>> >> >> > I'm ok with this as a short term solution. IIUC, this is going to be an > expensive lookup because of the way the slave state is currently stored? > Agreed, I think I'll start with 3 as it's purely a webui change. If we run into additional complexity because of the missing executor IDs for command executors, we can look at changing the protobufs.
