> On June 25, 2015, 12:31 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > Thanks Michael! Did you see jie's comment on 
> > [MESOS-1187](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1187)? Looks like 
> > that will make these kinds of checks problematic.
> > 
> > Also, it's going to be possible for the slave to be over-allocated due to 
> > oversubscription (currently the total from addSlave doesn't include the 
> > oversubpription resources, and in the future we might want to express 
> > over-allocation, see: 
> > [MESOS-2930](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2930).
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
>     Hey Ben! I think the `CHECK` does need to be dropped, more so because of 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35836. Question: should I just drop the `CHECK` 
> in this patch and keep the test? or should I just drop this patch all 
> together?
>     > Did you see jie's comment on MESOS-1187? Looks like that will make 
> these kinds of checks problematic.
>     
>     Yeah, I spoke to Jie about 
> [MESOS-1187](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1187) earlier today. 
> That's really a separate concern though, since that bug breaks our 
> expectations of how `contains` and `equality` works for `Resources` in 
> general.

Doesn't MESOS-1187 make these kinds of checks prone to failing?


- Ben


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35816/#review89295
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 24, 2015, 3:35 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35816/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 24, 2015, 3:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Fixed the incorrect `CHECK_EQ` introduced in 
> [r35699](https://reviews.apache.org/r/35699/).
> 
> From @bmahler:
> > Whoops, Jie just noticed that this isn't correct because 
> > 'updatedAllocation' is for the framework only, whereas 'total' and 
> > 'available' are for all frameworks on the slave.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.hpp 
> ef18ff850addfb5ce3500ed28e8ffd801e2d24eb 
>   src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp 
> 3258840135290cd008ca09235d18b7f093dafd2e 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35816/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> (1) Added a test 
> `HierarchicalAllocatorTest.UpdateAllocationMultipleFrameworks` which breaks 
> the previous `CHECK_EQ` condition.
> (2) `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Reply via email to