----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#review86039 -----------------------------------------------------------
LGTM - Would it make sense to have sane min/max values for the timeouts/counts? I wonder it would make sense to have a test to exercise an upgrade path (the timeout being different in the slaves, than in the master). Maybe I missed that in your first test. docs/configuration.md <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137889> As this will be markdown, how about formatting max_slave_ping_timeouts in `` or as "--max_slave_ping_timeouts" ? docs/upgrades.md <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137891> You shouldn't need this line - look at line 9 :) src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137899> You should be able to const this, right? Here and below src/messages/messages.proto <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137902> Why a zero default? src/slave/slave.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137903> We should Camel case here, right? src/slave/slave.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137904> Same here src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137905> Camel case? src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137906> If we removed the 0 default, we'd do: if (ping_timeout_seconds.isSome()) { // ... } Which seems a bit more logical to me :) src/tests/partition_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137936> What do you think about commenting on why you chose these dividing factors (Why 3, Why 2? What will these do compared to the original timeouts?) src/tests/partition_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137931> const? src/tests/partition_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137938> newline? src/tests/partition_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/#comment137937> Newline? - Niklas Nielsen On May 28, 2015, 4:13 p.m., Adam B wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 28, 2015, 4:13 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Niklas Nielsen. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2110 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2110 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added new --slave_ping_timeout and --max_slave_ping_timeouts flags > to mesos-master to supplement the DEFAULT_SLAVE_PING_TIMEOUT (15secs) > and DEFAULT_MAX_SLAVE_PING_TIMEOUTS (5). > > These can be extended if slaves are expected/allowed to be down for > longer than a minute or two. > > Slave will receive master's ping timeout in SlaveRe[re]gisteredMessage. > > Beware that this affects recovery from network timeouts as well as > actual slave node/process failover. > > Also fixed the log message in recoveredSlavesTimeout() to correctly > reference flags.slave_reregister_timeout instead of the unrelated > ping timeouts. > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/configuration.md 5a41477 > docs/upgrades.md 355307a > src/master/constants.hpp 57cf8fb > src/master/constants.cpp 8c7174a > src/master/flags.hpp 84fa238 > src/master/flags.cpp 49d953a > src/master/master.cpp 1526f59 > src/messages/messages.proto 39dac72 > src/slave/constants.hpp 206d439 > src/slave/constants.cpp d8d2f98 > src/slave/slave.hpp 0207eaf > src/slave/slave.cpp b4d2029 > src/tests/partition_tests.cpp f7ee3ab > src/tests/slave_recovery_tests.cpp c036e9c > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp acae497 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29507/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Manually tested slave failover/shutdown with master using different > --slave_ping_timeout and --max_slave_ping_timeouts. > Ran unit tests with shorter non-default values for ping timeouts. > `make check` with new unit tests: ShortPingTimeoutUnreachableMaster and > ShortPingTimeoutUnreachableSlave > > > Thanks, > > Adam B > >
