-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/70116/#review213632
-----------------------------------------------------------



One discussion point, but otherwise LGTM.


src/master/master.cpp
Lines 11361-11385 (original), 11378-11402 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/70116/#comment299630>

    I'm curious what would be the proper way to handle operation 
cleanup/removal.
    
    When an operation is transitioned into a terminal state, the master will 
usually `removeOperation(...)` shortly afterwards.  Since we don't decrement 
the metrics in this case, the number of terminal operations will continue to 
grow.  This seems like the proper behavior.
    
    However, in this code, it is possible to remove an agent with non-terminal 
operations.  This means the non-terminal metrics will never be decremented.  So 
you can have a cluster with 0 operations, but the metric for pending operations 
might be non-zero.


- Joseph Wu


On March 11, 2019, 12:14 p.m., Benno Evers wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/70116/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 11, 2019, 12:14 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gastón Kleiman, Greg Mann, and Joseph Wu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8241
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8241
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This commit adds additional metrics counting the
> number of operations in each state.
> 
> Unit tests are added in the subsequent commit.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp dc68fc324de7242737123015fbac19a2129778ce 
>   src/master/metrics.hpp 4495e65b6bb11f7236335a702c4f61e7c3f9b0aa 
>   src/master/metrics.cpp 4dd73fb18a06ce8f75c4c1435dba84ade123bee9 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70116/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benno Evers
> 
>

Reply via email to