This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:

(Updated June 26, 2015, 10:55 p.m.)

Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Jie Yu, Joris 
Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.


Split out the allocator changes.

Bugs: MESOS-2600

Repository: mesos


This involved a lot more challenges than I anticipated, I've captured the 
various approaches and limitations and deal-breakers of those approaches here: 
[Master Endpoint Implementation 

Key points:

* This is a stop-gap solution until we shift the offer creation/management 
logic from the master to the allocator.
* `updateAvailable` and `updateSlave` are kept separate because
  (1) `updateAvailable` is allowed to fail whereas `updateSlave` must not.
  (2) `updateAvailable` returns a `Future` whereas `updateSlave` does not.
  (3) `updateAvailable` never leaves the allocator in an over-allocated state 
and must not, whereas `updateSlave` does, and can.
* The algorithm:
    * Initially, the master pessimistically assume that what seems like 
"available" resources will be gone.
      This is due to the race between the allocator scheduling an `allocate` 
call to itself vs master's `allocator->updateAvailable` invocation.
      As such, we first try to satisfy the request only with the offered 
    * We greedily rescind one offer at a time until we've rescinded 
sufficiently many offers.
      IMPORTANT: We perform `recoverResources(..., Filters())` rather than 
`recoverResources(..., None())` so that we can pretty much always win the race 
against `allocate`.
                 In the case that we lose, no disaster occurs. We simply fail 
to satisfy the request.
    * If we still don't have enough resources after resciding all offers, be 
optimistic and forward the request to the allocator since there may be 
available resources to satisfy the request.
    * If the allocator returns a failure, report the error to the user with 
`PreconditionFailed`. This could be updated to be `Forbidden`, or `Conflict` 
maybe as well. We'll pick one eventually.

This approach is clearly not ideal, since we would prefer to rescind as little 
offers as possible.
The challenges of implementing the ideal solution in the current state is 
described in the document above.

TODO(mpark): Add more comments and test cases.
TODO(mpark): Return a `Future<Nothing>` rather than `Future<Try<Nothing>>` and 
use `Future::repair` to propagate the failure state.

Diffs (updated)

  src/Makefile.am a064d17a6b62e6e3c8e190135bcc8cbbb0051ed5 
  src/master/http.cpp 350383362311cfbc830965e1155a8515f0dfb332 
  src/master/master.hpp af83d3e82d2c161b3cc4583e78a8cbbd2f9a4064 
  src/master/master.cpp 0782b543b451921d2240958c7ef612a9e30972df 
  src/master/validation.hpp 469d6f56c3de28a34177124aae81ce24cb4ad160 
  src/master/validation.cpp 9d128aa1b349b018b8e4a1916434d848761ca051 
  src/tests/reserve_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35702/diff/


Added `src/tests/reserve_tests.cpp`.


Michael Park

Reply via email to