> On Aug. 5, 2015, 5:46 a.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > src/master/http.cpp, line 534 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35702/diff/12/?file=1026443#file1026443line534> > > > > I don't like the name 'flatten' :( > > > > Could you at least be more explicit about it (i.e., emphasize that > > 'remaining' only has unreserved resources). > > > > ``` > > Resources remaining = resources.flatten('*'); > > ``` > > Michael Park wrote: > I don't like it either, but we currently have 9 instances of `flatten()` > but no instances of `flatten("*")`. Do you think it's worth breaking > consistency here? As far as I know, we seem to favor consistency.
OK, fair enough. Given the comment you just added, I think it's much more clear not. - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35702/#review94154 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 5, 2015, 10:44 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/35702/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 5, 2015, 10:44 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Jie Yu, Joris > Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2600 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2600 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > 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 > Challenges](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cwVz4aKiCYP9Y4MOwHYZkyaiuEv7fArCye-vPvB2lAI/edit#) > > 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 > resources. > * 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. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/http.cpp 76e70801925041f08bc94f0ca18c86f1a573b2b3 > src/master/master.hpp e44174976aa64176916827bec4c911333c9a91db > src/master/master.cpp 5aa0a5410804fe16abd50b6953f1ffe46a019ecf > src/master/validation.hpp 43b8d84556e7f0a891dddf6185bbce7ca50b360a > src/master/validation.cpp ffb7bf07b8a40d6e14f922eabcf46045462498b5 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35702/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
