> On June 14, 2015, 10:46 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > Just so I understand, does this mean if we happen to get in the unfortunate > > situation where a slave has neglected to get the dynamic reservation > > because it was just starting up and then it gets the task launch it will > > shutdown the slave because the CHECK will fail? I would expect the slave to > > simply send a TASK_LOST. Said another way, this is not an assertion our > > code guarantees. If instead we were waiting for some kind of an ack from > > the slave that it received the dynamic reservation before it send the task > > launch then a CHECK would make sense. > > Jie Yu wrote: > We don't expect this to happen because we always send a > CheckpointResourcesMessage before sending the task to the slave and TCP > ensures in order delivery (out of order delivery is possible if two sockets > are used. it's possible because the way we create ephemeral connections, but > this is very unlikely to happen). Master won't send the task to the slave if > the slave hasn't registered. > > I would rather keep the CHECK here unless we found that this is a real > issue (and then we can change that to send status update). > > Michael Park wrote: > So currently it is possible for this to happen, but only with a very > small probability. Your proposal is to keep the `CHECK` and put in the effort > to eliminate the possibility once we observe it as a real problem, correct? > The part that I don't quite understand is, what's the motivation to wait for > a real problem to occur when we know it's possible to run into this issue > (even with a small probability), the effort to change the `CHECK` to sending > `TASK_LOST` seems to be small?
Well, everything has a probablity to fail, the question is how large the probability is. Memory could have hardware errors and a bit could be flipped due to random reasons, does that mean that we have to do parity check in every single location in our code base? I think my point is the probability for this to fail is extremely low so that we shouldn't worry too much. I am fine with sending a status update. - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review87857 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 15, 2015, 12:39 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 15, 2015, 12:39 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Jie Yu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > No bug was observed (yet), but realized I forgot about this in the dynamic > reservations patches. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.cpp 67732a40ef683cb0188425f0bba8fe8ab83e461c > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
