> On Feb. 1, 2016, 8:34 a.m., Jian Qiu wrote:
> > src/master/registry.proto, line 58
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/diff/1/?file=1204210#file1204210line58>
> >
> >     Why do we persist these fields instead of the whole frameworkInfo or 
> > frameworkId only?

The current proposal is only to persist the information which can not be 
chagned after framework register. Persist other information is usless, and will 
bring a bad performance due to frequently sync up between the discributed 
registry log.


- Yongqiao


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/#review117192
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 1, 2016, 7:23 a.m., Yongqiao Wang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 1, 2016, 7:23 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Guangya Liu, Klaus Ma, Klaus Ma, Qian 
> Zhang, Jian Qiu, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-1719
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1719
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Add the protobufs in registry to persist some framework informations which do 
> not allow to change when framework re-register.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/registry.proto 9958f9c2bdb785390fca2f292b65d5a9310434d5 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42591/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Make && Make check successfully
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Yongqiao Wang
> 
>

Reply via email to