> On Feb. 1, 2018, 10:18 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > docs/fault-domains.md
> > Lines 63 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65437/diff/2/?file=1950950#file1950950line63>
> >
> >     s/The default/By default, the/
> 
> Benno Evers wrote:
>     Are you sure about this? It would imply to me as a reader that this 
> behaviour can be changed.

I see. Yea, I'm not very sure then, what you have is probably less confusing.


> On Feb. 1, 2018, 10:18 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > docs/fault-domains.md
> > Lines 80 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65437/diff/2/?file=1950950#file1950950line80>
> >
> >     Non-region-aware frameworks will only receive offers from the primary 
> > region (region containing masters). They won't get offers from other 
> > regions.
> 
> Benno Evers wrote:
>     Does this actually imply that users should upgrade all their frameworks 
> to be partition-aware before configuring masters and agents with fault 
> domains? In this example, it would be quite devastating if two out of three 
> datacenters suddenly went completely unused.

s/primary/local/ in my first comment.

Do you mean REGION aware and not PARTION aware? So, yes, frameworks need to 
register with REGION_AWARE capability if they want remote region offers. The 
rationale was that most frameworks want their workloads in the local region and 
not magically go to remote regions with potentially higher latencies without an 
explicit opt-in. Note that region-aware frameworks should ideally expose the 
remote launching capability to their users too (e.g., via a configuration 
option in the app definition) before they start registering with REGION_AWARE 
capability.


- Vinod


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65437/#review196653
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 2, 2018, 7:30 p.m., Benno Evers wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65437/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 2, 2018, 7:30 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8483
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8483
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Fault domains are a new feature in 1.5 which did not yet have
> a corresponding description in the documentation.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   docs/configuration/master-and-agent.md 
> f247498ead43a16bbef5afb49d453073dd9ab6ef 
>   docs/fault-domains.md PRE-CREATION 
>   docs/home.md f5b65cc7895b10181e1b8483e3ee9da596d00fd6 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65437/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benno Evers
> 
>

Reply via email to