[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2363?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael Park updated MESOS-2363: -------------------------------- Comment: was deleted (was: The resolution for this is to use the existing authorization mechanism via ACLs to specify the rules for who can unreserve whose resources.) > Reach a consensus on the terminology for Reservation levels. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: MESOS-2363 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2363 > Project: Mesos > Issue Type: Task > Reporter: Michael Park > > With the introduction of dynamic reservations, frameworks are given the > ability to reserve unreserved resources for their role. > We introduce different levels of reservations in order to give full admin > control to the operators and also to prevent the frameworks to override > operator-configured settings. > The initial idea was to introduce a {{ReserverType}} with {{OPERATOR}} and > {{FRAMEWORK}} to distinguish them. It turns out however that this idea > doesn't work well if we want to allow an authorized framework with > operator-level permissions to make operator-level changes. This leads to the > idea that perhaps the names should be tied to the nature of reservation > level, rather than the reserver. > The following are a few ideas that have been suggested, would be great to > compile a biggest list here and reach a consensus on our terminology. > 1. Strong vs. Weak. > This indicates the *strength* of the reservation, they're both dynamic but an > operator or an authorized framework can make strong reservations whereas > regular frameworks would make weak reservations. > 2. System vs User. > Suggested by [~cmaloney], this comes from the Linux world where sysadmins and > authorized users can change system-level settings but regular users can > change user-level settings. > 3. Preset vs Runtime. > Suggested by [~benjaminhindman], operators set preset-reservations and > runtime reservations that can be changed by frameworks. > 4. Reservation Levels. > Similar to {{SEV}}. Indicate the strength of the reservation with a number. > Maybe {{RSVN1}}, {{RSVN2}}, etc. If you have access to {{RSVN_N}}, you have > access to all higher {{RSVN}}. > I like the generality of (4), since if we were to add more strengths/levels > of reservations, it would be the easiest to extend. Having said that, I also > think that having good names would also be valuable. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)