> On Jan. 31, 2017, 2:01 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 424-426 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55453/diff/4/?file=1610587#file1610587line424> > > > > The most direct interpretation for the delay is actually the time since > > the task was launched right? AFAIK Mesos provided executors immediately > > send TASK_RUNNING but this is not generally required right? > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > What do you understand under launch. Is it when the task has been > submitted to the master? Or when a scheduler got `TASK_STAGING`? Or all > necessary artifacts have been fetched and _executor_ launches the task? > Built-in executors indeed send task running right after they launched the > task (and at the same time start the delay timer for checks or health > checks). Custom executors are out of our control, they may send updates later > on. > > Since we cannot start the delay timer at `TASK_STAGING` or when the task > is submitted to the master, we can either agree on `TASK_RUNNING` or "task > has been submitted to the executor". I think the latter event is vague and > hence suggested to tie the delay to `TASK_RUNNING`. For built-in executors > both events occur close to each other in time.
I would say it should start after `TASK_STARTING`. For years we have been using the following semantic: `TASK_STARTING`: The executor launched the task `TASK_RUNNING`: The task is ready to receive production traffic (i.e. passing health checks if there are any defined. If there aren't health checks defined it's being sent right after `TASK_STARTING`). If delay_seconds only starts after `TASK_RUNNING` this semantic doesn't make sense anymore. If that's the case, I'm not sure why we even have a distinction between `TASK_RUNNING` and `TASK_STARTING`? - Robert ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55453/#review163612 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 20, 2017, 2:48 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55453/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 20, 2017, 2:48 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Gastón Kleiman, haosdent huang, and Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/mesos.proto 8f14444d6957a97eff1e0a94817d38e7a7de6d69 > include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 74e7851b147ab821dceeab6e838d34b092f101c3 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55453/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > None: not a functional change. > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rukletsov > >
