Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57527/ --- (Updated April 11, 2017, 10 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier,

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57527/#review170763 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Michael Park On March 20, 2017, 2:18

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

> On March 18, 2017, 12:09 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp > > Lines 1329-1355 (original), 1329-1337 (patched) > > > > > > Hm.. this seems somewhat snuck in to this

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57527/#review169345 --- For posterity, Neil and I discussed at length offline whether we

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

> On March 17, 2017, 1:41 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > Thinking a little more about this, it seems odd that the sorter is storing > > weight information for clients that are unknown to it. Why? It seems > > cleaner if the sorter only understands weights for its clients, rather than > >

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

> On March 17, 2017, 1:41 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > Thinking a little more about this, it seems odd that the sorter is storing > > weight information for clients that are unknown to it. Why? It seems > > cleaner if the sorter only understands weights for its clients, rather than > >

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

> On March 17, 2017, 1:41 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > Thinking a little more about this, it seems odd that the sorter is storing > > weight information for clients that are unknown to it. Why? It seems > > cleaner if the sorter only understands weights for its clients, rather than > >

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57527/#review169247 --- Thinking a little more about this, it seems odd that the sorter

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

> On March 17, 2017, 12:42 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > Hm.. there is no way for weights to be removed from the sorter? Is that > > intentional? If there is some non-local reasoning needed to understand why, > > it would be great to document it. > > > > Also, could we perhaps title this

Re: Review Request 57527: Avoided storing weights in the allocator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57527/ --- (Updated March 17, 2017, 1:12 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin