date:20160121

Re: [Discussion] MESOS-4442: `allocated` may have more resources then `total` in allocator

2016-01-21 Thread Klaus Ma

Yes, *total*: cpus(*):2 vs. *allocated*: cpus(*):2;cpus(*){REV}:2


Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
Platform OpenSource Technology, STG, IBM GCG
+86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Qian Zhang  wrote:

> In the log you posted, it seems total cpus is also 2 rather than 1, but it
> seem there are 4 allocated cpus (2 non-revocable and 2 revocable)?
>
> I0121 17:08:09.303431 4284416 hierarchical.cpp:528] Slave
> f2d8b550-ed52-44a4-a35a-1fff81d41391-S0 (9.181.90.153) updated with
> oversubscribed resources  (total: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> ports(*):[31000-32000], allocated: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> ports(*):[31000-32000]; *cpus(*){REV}:2*)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Qian Zhang
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Klaus Ma  wrote:
>
> > Hi team,
> >
> > When I double-check the feature interaction between Optimistic Offer
> Phase
> > 1 & Oversubscription, I found an issue that `allocated` may have more
> > resources then `total` in allocator when enable Oversubscription. I'd
> like
> > to get your input on whether this is design behaviour, although the
> impact
> > is low: 1.) allocator will not offer this delta resources, 2) QoS
> > Controller will correct it later by killing the executor. Personally, I'd
> > like to keep this assumption in allocator: slave.total always contains
> > slave.allocated.
> >
> > Here's the steps:
> >
> > T1: in cluster, cpus=2: one is revocable and the other one is
> nonRevocable
> > T2: framework1 get offer cpus=2, launch task but estimator report empty
> > resources before executor launched
> > T3: slave.total is updated to cpus=1 in
> > HierarchicalAllocatorProcess::updateSlave
> > T4: in allocate(), slave.total (cpus=1) < slave.allocated (cpus=2)
> >
> > Here's the log I got:
> >
> > I0121 17:08:09.303431 4284416 hierarchical.cpp:528] Slave
> > f2d8b550-ed52-44a4-a35a-1fff81d41391-S0 (9.181.90.153) updated with
> > oversubscribed resources  (total: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> > ports(*):[31000-32000], allocated: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> > ports(*):[31000-32000]; *cpus(*){REV}:2*)
> >
> > Please refer to MESOS-4442 for more detail.
> >
> > 
> > Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> > Platform OpenSource Technology, STG, IBM GCG
> > +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
> >
>

Re: [Discussion] MESOS-4442: `allocated` may have more resources then `total` in allocator

2016-01-21 Thread Qian Zhang

In the log you posted, it seems total cpus is also 2 rather than 1, but it
seem there are 4 allocated cpus (2 non-revocable and 2 revocable)?

I0121 17:08:09.303431 4284416 hierarchical.cpp:528] Slave
f2d8b550-ed52-44a4-a35a-1fff81d41391-S0 (9.181.90.153) updated with
oversubscribed resources  (total: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
ports(*):[31000-32000], allocated: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
ports(*):[31000-32000]; *cpus(*){REV}:2*)


Thanks,
Qian Zhang

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Klaus Ma  wrote:

> Hi team,
>
> When I double-check the feature interaction between Optimistic Offer Phase
> 1 & Oversubscription, I found an issue that `allocated` may have more
> resources then `total` in allocator when enable Oversubscription. I'd like
> to get your input on whether this is design behaviour, although the impact
> is low: 1.) allocator will not offer this delta resources, 2) QoS
> Controller will correct it later by killing the executor. Personally, I'd
> like to keep this assumption in allocator: slave.total always contains
> slave.allocated.
>
> Here's the steps:
>
> T1: in cluster, cpus=2: one is revocable and the other one is nonRevocable
> T2: framework1 get offer cpus=2, launch task but estimator report empty
> resources before executor launched
> T3: slave.total is updated to cpus=1 in
> HierarchicalAllocatorProcess::updateSlave
> T4: in allocate(), slave.total (cpus=1) < slave.allocated (cpus=2)
>
> Here's the log I got:
>
> I0121 17:08:09.303431 4284416 hierarchical.cpp:528] Slave
> f2d8b550-ed52-44a4-a35a-1fff81d41391-S0 (9.181.90.153) updated with
> oversubscribed resources  (total: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> ports(*):[31000-32000], allocated: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
> ports(*):[31000-32000]; *cpus(*){REV}:2*)
>
> Please refer to MESOS-4442 for more detail.
>
> 
> Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
> Platform OpenSource Technology, STG, IBM GCG
> +86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me
>

[Discussion] MESOS-4442: `allocated` may have more resources then `total` in allocator

2016-01-21 Thread Klaus Ma

Hi team,

When I double-check the feature interaction between Optimistic Offer Phase
1 & Oversubscription, I found an issue that `allocated` may have more
resources then `total` in allocator when enable Oversubscription. I'd like
to get your input on whether this is design behaviour, although the impact
is low: 1.) allocator will not offer this delta resources, 2) QoS
Controller will correct it later by killing the executor. Personally, I'd
like to keep this assumption in allocator: slave.total always contains
slave.allocated.

Here's the steps:

T1: in cluster, cpus=2: one is revocable and the other one is nonRevocable
T2: framework1 get offer cpus=2, launch task but estimator report empty
resources before executor launched
T3: slave.total is updated to cpus=1 in
HierarchicalAllocatorProcess::updateSlave
T4: in allocate(), slave.total (cpus=1) < slave.allocated (cpus=2)

Here's the log I got:

I0121 17:08:09.303431 4284416 hierarchical.cpp:528] Slave
f2d8b550-ed52-44a4-a35a-1fff81d41391-S0 (9.181.90.153) updated with
oversubscribed resources  (total: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
ports(*):[31000-32000], allocated: cpus(*):2; mem(*):1024; disk(*):1024;
ports(*):[31000-32000]; *cpus(*){REV}:2*)

Please refer to MESOS-4442 for more detail.


Da (Klaus), Ma (马达) | PMP® | Advisory Software Engineer
Platform OpenSource Technology, STG, IBM GCG
+86-10-8245 4084 | klaus1982...@gmail.com | http://k82.me

Need a shepherd for MESOS--3317

2016-01-21 Thread Abhishek Dasgupta


Hi,

Can anybody please shepherd for 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3317 ?


--
  Regards,

  
---
  Abhishek Dasgupta
  Linux Software Developer - Linux Technology Centre
  IBM Systems Lab,
  IBM India Pvt. Ltd.
  Embassy Golf Link, D Block
  Koramongala - Off Indiranagar Ring Road
  Bangalore - 560 071
  Mobile: +91-8884107981
  
---

Re: `F()` vs `F(void)`

2016-01-21 Thread Bernd Mathiske

High five!

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Michael Park  wrote:
> 
> `void` parameters are no longer with us.
> 
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/commit/93a5708294d6d66a5e1350a0bb1c8fe87605ee1d
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/commit/05f9fb2fa66968f37418d28fc8cebd0770a54dca
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/commit/4d4d7166414f0ebd8d5e40df34070446098a3c91
> 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:36 AM Alexander Rojas 
> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> On 13 Dec 2015, at 19:46, Michael Park  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> In the C++ world, the *void* parameter is considered to be only there
>> for C
>>> compatibility reasons.
>>> 
>>> We do a good job of not using *void *parameters in function declarations,
>>> e.g., *void F();*. On the other hand, we're *not* so good doing so for
>>> function types, e.g., *std::function*.
>>> 
>>> I would like to see the codebase converge to *not* use *void* as a
>>> parameter type, and would like feedback if anyone holds strong opposing
>>> opinions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> MPark.
>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Follow up on the proposal for simulation tools for master and allocator

2016-01-21 Thread Neil Conway

Hi Zhitao,

There's a JIRA here:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3855

A few people who are interested in simulation of Mesos have been
meeting periodically, although due to the holidays we haven't had a
meeting in a little bit. I'll make sure you're included in the next
meeting when we get it scheduled.

Thanks,
Neil

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Zhitao Li  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I saw a message from last year 
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40mesos.apache.org/msg33342.html 
> ) about a 
> proposal for simulation tools. Has it been formalized as a JIRA issue so 
> interested parties can subscribe and contribute design ideas?
>
> Thanks.

答复: 答复: Request Mesos contributor role

2016-01-21 Thread pangbingqiang

Thanks, I have fix it, please review it. If have any problem please let me know.

-邮件原件-
发件人: pangbingqiang 
发送时间: 2016年1月21日 12:24
收件人: dev
主题: 答复: 答复: Request Mesos contributor role

Thanks, I have fix it, please rereview it. If have any problem please let me 
know.

-邮件原件-
发件人: Adam Bordelon [mailto:a...@mesosphere.io]
发送时间: 2016年1月15日 15:17
收件人: dev
主题: Re: 答复: Request Mesos contributor role

Just run `git log` or `git log --oneline` for many more examples. :)

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Adam Bordelon  wrote:

> You'll need to shorten your commit summary, which is derived from the 
> 'Summary' field in ReviewBoard. You can put a longer description in 
> the 'Description' field, and it will also be included in the final 
> commit message (although not in the first line, which is restricted to 72 
> chars).
>
> Also, since the patch's summary ends up being the commit message, 
> please phrase it in terms of what you did to fix the problem, rather 
> than just restating the problem without a solution. For example:
> "Added timestamp to DockerContainerizer's ResourceStatistics."
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:36 AM, pangbingqiang 
> 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks! Yeah, the hooks dir have a commit-msg file, so what I should 
>> do to fix this? The file line no more than 72 chars.
>>
>> -邮件原件-
>> 发件人: Benjamin Bannier [mailto:benjamin.bann...@mesosphere.io]
>> 发送时间: 2016年1月14日 20:20
>> 收件人: dev@mesos.apache.org
>> 主题: Re: Request Mesos contributor role
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> >> Error:
>> >> 2016-01-14 09:19:38
>> >> URL:https://reviews.apache.org/r/42288/diff/raw/
>> >> [612/612] -> "42288.patch" [1] Total errors found: 0 Checking 1 
>> >> files
>> >> Error: Commit message summary (the first line) must not exceed 72
>> characters.
>> >
>> >> my patch first line is:
>> >> diff --git a/src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp
>> >> b/src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp
>> >
>> >> how could I to fix this?
>>
>> This refers to the commit message,
>>
>> Docker container REST API /monitor/statistics.json output have no 
>> timestamp field
>>
>> which is too long (I count 81 chars, but a hard max is put at 72 
>> chars); the same automated check also rejects commit summaries not 
>> ending in a period `.`. Additionally, a human reviewer will likely 
>> ask you to use past tense (e.g., “Fixed … for …”).
>>
>> If you rerun `bootstrap` from the project root it should install 
>> local git hooks so that the same checks are run locally on your 
>> machine while you develop.
>>
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Benjamin
>>
>
>

Re: Follow up on the proposal for simulation tools for master and allocator

2016-01-21 Thread Kevin Klues

Count me in as well.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Neil Conway  wrote:
> Hi Zhitao,
>
> There's a JIRA here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3855
>
> A few people who are interested in simulation of Mesos have been
> meeting periodically, although due to the holidays we haven't had a
> meeting in a little bit. I'll make sure you're included in the next
> meeting when we get it scheduled.
>
> Thanks,
> Neil
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Zhitao Li  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I saw a message from last year 
>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40mesos.apache.org/msg33342.html 
>> ) about a 
>> proposal for simulation tools. Has it been formalized as a JIRA issue so 
>> interested parties can subscribe and contribute design ideas?
>>
>> Thanks.



-- 
~Kevin

Re: [Discussion] MESOS-4442: `allocated` may have more resources then `total` in allocator

Re: [Discussion] MESOS-4442: `allocated` may have more resources then `total` in allocator

[Discussion] MESOS-4442: `allocated` may have more resources then `total` in allocator

Need a shepherd for MESOS--3317

Re: `F()` vs `F(void)`

Re: Follow up on the proposal for simulation tools for master and allocator

答复: 答复: Request Mesos contributor role

Re: Follow up on the proposal for simulation tools for master and allocator

8 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information