> On Nov. 18, 2015, 3:51 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> > src/master/quota_handler.cpp, line 180
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40351/diff/3/?file=1128793#file1128793line180>
> >
> >     Why do we want to rescind the offeres that do not contribute to 
> > satisfying quota request?
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
>     Because we may rescind more than necessary to satisfy quota request 
> (remember minimal agent count). If we have a check in place, this will 
> effectively prevent us from doing so. Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Qian Zhang wrote:
>     Suppose the quota request is to request 20GB disk for a role, and there 
> is an offer which only include 2 CPU & 2GB memory and has no disk resources 
> at all, so we will rescind this offer too? This seems a little unfair to me.
>     And can you please clarify a little more about why we want to rescind 
> offers from at least `numF` agents? The reason is that we want to ensure each 
> framework in that role will have a chance to get an offer in next allocation 
> cycle?
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
>     That's correct, we will rescind that offer and yes, it's a bit unfair. 
> Let me explain why I decided to remove this check. Suppose we a quota request 
> is for 6 CPUs for role with 3 frameworks. The first offer we rescind is 10 
> CPUs, 10GB MEM. Technically, we have enough resources to satisfy quota, but 
> we would like to rescind offers from at least 2 more agents. Having a check 
> in place will prevent us from doing so. Do you think greedy rescinding can be 
> a problem?
>     
>     Yes, we would like to facilitate allocation for each framework in the 
> role, for which quota is set.

The most unclear in my mind is why we need to rescind offers from at least numF 
agents, i.e., in your example above, why do we want to rescind offers from at 
least 2 more agents after quota has been satisfied? Can you please let me know 
the motivation behind it? I think quota is kind of global concept which should 
not have direct relation with agent and framework, it should stay in role 
level. So I am not sure why we want to facilitate allocation for each framework 
in the role, is that something that we mentioned in design doc? Maybe I forget 
... :-)


- Qian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/40351/#review106977
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 23, 2015, 8:57 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/40351/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 23, 2015, 8:57 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske, Joerg Schad, Joris Van Remoortere, 
> Joseph Wu, and Qian Zhang.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3912
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3912
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.hpp d4b1edde98925fd51e056f253758afea779be9ed 
>   src/master/quota_handler.cpp 86d7331aa79adb1d9a3009552fc4c2aed0229804 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40351/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (Mac OS X 10.10.4)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>

Reply via email to