Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[David McLaughlin]

> On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:59 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 333 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > We should only consider `UP` if the previous state is also `UP` for 
> > `PARTITIONED` state. For instance, `KILLING` -> `PARTITIONED` should we 
> > counted as `REMOVED`.
> 
> David McLaughlin wrote:
> You cannot move from KILLING to PARTITIONED.
> 
> Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> I was able to trigger a transition from KILLING to PARTITIONED.
> 
> - Creating job
> ```
> vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job create 
> devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled 
> aurora/src/test/sh/org/apache/aurora/e2e/partition_aware.aurora
>  INFO] Creating job partition_aware_disabled
>  INFO] Checking status of devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
> Job create succeeded: job 
> url=http://aurora.local:8081/scheduler/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
> ```
> 
> - Checking Status
> ```
> vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job status devcluster
>  INFO] Retrieving jobs for role None
>  INFO] Checking status of devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
> Active tasks (1):
>   Task role: vagrant, env: test, name: partition_aware_disabled, 
> instance: 0, status: RUNNING on 192.168.33.7
> CPU: 0.2 core(s), RAM: 1 MB, Disk: 8 MB
> events:
>  2018-01-25 04:07:08 PENDING: None
>  2018-01-25 04:07:08 ASSIGNED: None
>  2018-01-25 04:07:09 STARTING: None
>  2018-01-25 04:07:10 RUNNING: No health-check defined, task is 
> assumed healthy.
> ```
> 
> - Create Partition
> ```
> vagrant@aurora:~$ sudo stop mesos-slave
> mesos-slave stop/waiting
> ```
> 
> - Kill task
> ```
> vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job killall 
> devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
>  INFO] Killing tasks for job: 
> devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
>  INFO] Instances to be killed: [0]
> Instances [0] were not killed in time
> Exceeded maximum number of errors while killing instances
> ```
> 
> - Checking Status
> ```
> vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job status devcluster
>  INFO] Retrieving jobs for role None
>  INFO] Checking status of devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
> Active tasks (1):
>   Task role: vagrant, env: test, name: partition_aware_disabled, 
> instance: 0, status: KILLING on 192.168.33.7
> CPU: 0.2 core(s), RAM: 1 MB, Disk: 8 MB
> events:
>  2018-01-25 04:07:08 PENDING: None
>  2018-01-25 04:07:08 ASSIGNED: None
>  2018-01-25 04:07:09 STARTING: None
>  2018-01-25 04:07:10 RUNNING: No health-check defined, task is 
> assumed healthy.
>  2018-01-25 04:10:10 KILLING: Killed by aurora
> ```
> 
> Scheduler Logs:
> ```
> I0125 04:11:18.817 [Thread-66, 
> MesosCallbackHandler$MesosCallbackHandlerImpl] Received status update for 
> task 
> vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4 
> in state TASK_UNREACHABLE from SOURCE_MASTER with REASON_AGENT_REMOVED: Agent 
> 192.168.33.7 is unreachable: health check timed out
> W0125 04:11:18.818 [AsyncProcessor-0, Stats] Re-using already registered 
> variable for key task_delivery_delay_SOURCE_MASTER_timeouts_per_sec
> W0125 04:11:18.818 [AsyncProcessor-0, Stats] Re-using already registered 
> variable for key task_delivery_delay_SOURCE_MASTER_requests_per_sec
> I0125 04:11:18.819 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateMachine] 
> vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4 
> state machine transition KILLING -> PARTITIONED
> I0125 04:11:18.820 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateMachine] 
> vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4 
> state machine transition PARTITIONED -> LOST
> I0125 04:11:18.820 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateManagerImpl] Task being 
> rescheduled: 
> vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4
> I0125 04:11:18.821 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateMachine] 
> vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-27c9bed4-708d-4d71-a0c1-33584b81c654 
> state machine transition INIT -> PENDING
> ```
> 
> As pointed out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1966, this 
> causes the Scheduler to indefinitely keep killing the partitioned task.

Right, that bug aside, KILLING -> PARTITIONED triggers an immediate transition 
to LOST. The intermediate state of PARTITONED is basically a noop.


- David


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196198
---


On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m., David McLaughlin 

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham]

> On Jan. 24, 2018, 6:59 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 333 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > We should only consider `UP` if the previous state is also `UP` for 
> > `PARTITIONED` state. For instance, `KILLING` -> `PARTITIONED` should we 
> > counted as `REMOVED`.
> 
> David McLaughlin wrote:
> You cannot move from KILLING to PARTITIONED.

I was able to trigger a transition from KILLING to PARTITIONED.

- Creating job
```
vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job create 
devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled 
aurora/src/test/sh/org/apache/aurora/e2e/partition_aware.aurora
 INFO] Creating job partition_aware_disabled
 INFO] Checking status of devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
Job create succeeded: job 
url=http://aurora.local:8081/scheduler/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
```

- Checking Status
```
vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job status devcluster
 INFO] Retrieving jobs for role None
 INFO] Checking status of devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
Active tasks (1):
Task role: vagrant, env: test, name: partition_aware_disabled, 
instance: 0, status: RUNNING on 192.168.33.7
  CPU: 0.2 core(s), RAM: 1 MB, Disk: 8 MB
  events:
   2018-01-25 04:07:08 PENDING: None
   2018-01-25 04:07:08 ASSIGNED: None
   2018-01-25 04:07:09 STARTING: None
   2018-01-25 04:07:10 RUNNING: No health-check defined, task is 
assumed healthy.
```

- Create Partition
```
vagrant@aurora:~$ sudo stop mesos-slave
mesos-slave stop/waiting
```

- Kill task
```
vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job killall 
devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
 INFO] Killing tasks for job: devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
 INFO] Instances to be killed: [0]
Instances [0] were not killed in time
Exceeded maximum number of errors while killing instances
```

- Checking Status
```
vagrant@aurora:~$ aurora job status devcluster
 INFO] Retrieving jobs for role None
 INFO] Checking status of devcluster/vagrant/test/partition_aware_disabled
Active tasks (1):
Task role: vagrant, env: test, name: partition_aware_disabled, 
instance: 0, status: KILLING on 192.168.33.7
  CPU: 0.2 core(s), RAM: 1 MB, Disk: 8 MB
  events:
   2018-01-25 04:07:08 PENDING: None
   2018-01-25 04:07:08 ASSIGNED: None
   2018-01-25 04:07:09 STARTING: None
   2018-01-25 04:07:10 RUNNING: No health-check defined, task is 
assumed healthy.
   2018-01-25 04:10:10 KILLING: Killed by aurora
```

Scheduler Logs:
```
I0125 04:11:18.817 [Thread-66, MesosCallbackHandler$MesosCallbackHandlerImpl] 
Received status update for task 
vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4 in 
state TASK_UNREACHABLE from SOURCE_MASTER with REASON_AGENT_REMOVED: Agent 
192.168.33.7 is unreachable: health check timed out
W0125 04:11:18.818 [AsyncProcessor-0, Stats] Re-using already registered 
variable for key task_delivery_delay_SOURCE_MASTER_timeouts_per_sec
W0125 04:11:18.818 [AsyncProcessor-0, Stats] Re-using already registered 
variable for key task_delivery_delay_SOURCE_MASTER_requests_per_sec
I0125 04:11:18.819 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateMachine] 
vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4 
state machine transition KILLING -> PARTITIONED
I0125 04:11:18.820 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateMachine] 
vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4 
state machine transition PARTITIONED -> LOST
I0125 04:11:18.820 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateManagerImpl] Task being 
rescheduled: 
vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-3cb6e9ae-6643-460e-a08b-0bdba4bdd8d4
I0125 04:11:18.821 [TaskStatusHandlerImpl, StateMachine] 
vagrant-test-partition_aware_disabled-0-27c9bed4-708d-4d71-a0c1-33584b81c654 
state machine transition INIT -> PENDING
```

As pointed out in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1966, this 
causes the Scheduler to indefinitely keep killing the partitioned task.


- Santhosh Kumar


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196198
---


On Jan. 24, 2018, 6:04 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 24, 2018, 6:04 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[David McLaughlin]

> On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:59 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 333 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > We should only consider `UP` if the previous state is also `UP` for 
> > `PARTITIONED` state. For instance, `KILLING` -> `PARTITIONED` should we 
> > counted as `REMOVED`.

You cannot move from KILLING to PARTITIONED.


- David


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196198
---


On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196198
---




src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
Lines 333 (patched)


We should only consider `UP` if the previous state is also `UP` for 
`PARTITIONED` state. For instance, `KILLING` -> `PARTITIONED` should we counted 
as `REMOVED`.


- Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham


On Jan. 24, 2018, 6:04 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 24, 2018, 6:04 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[Aurora ReviewBot]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196196
---


Ship it!




Master (dbe7137) is green with this patch.
  ./build-support/jenkins/build.sh

I will refresh this build result if you post a review containing "@ReviewBot 
retry"

- Aurora ReviewBot


On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[David McLaughlin]

> On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:11 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 319 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
> +1
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
> I considered this as at first as well. However, it is the users choice to 
> be in `PARTITIONED` state, so this should not be counted as "cluster-induced 
> downtime". In addition, `PARTITIONED` does not indicate that the task is 
> down. It merely means that we don't know.
> 
> David McLaughlin wrote:
> That was my thought too. They are optimistically still running.
> 
> Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> That makes sense. 
> 
> Shouldn't we then include the time spent in `PARTITIONED` as `UP` in that 
> case? If I am reading it correctly, we will exclude time spent in 
> `PARTITIONED`, even if the task came an `UP` state.
> 
> David McLaughlin wrote:
> You're right, this should carry the same logic as RUNNING.

I've made this change. Santhosh I'll wait for your ship it before commit. 

Question: I put PARTITIONED here blindly because I saw STARTING. STARTING is 
now a legitimate running state... should STARTING also be considered UP? I'm 
not sure if it actually impacts the SLA % reported, but do I know a whole bunch 
of crons can stay in STARTING for their whole duration.


- David


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196047
---


On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[David McLaughlin]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
---

(Updated Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m.)


Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.


Changes
---

Treat PARTITIONED as UP.


Repository: aurora


Description
---

Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
against this test failing in the future.


Diffs (updated)
-

  src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
  src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 


Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/2/

Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/1-2/


Testing
---

./gradlew test


Thanks,

David McLaughlin

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[David McLaughlin]

> On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:11 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 319 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
> +1
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
> I considered this as at first as well. However, it is the users choice to 
> be in `PARTITIONED` state, so this should not be counted as "cluster-induced 
> downtime". In addition, `PARTITIONED` does not indicate that the task is 
> down. It merely means that we don't know.
> 
> David McLaughlin wrote:
> That was my thought too. They are optimistically still running.
> 
> Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> That makes sense. 
> 
> Shouldn't we then include the time spent in `PARTITIONED` as `UP` in that 
> case? If I am reading it correctly, we will exclude time spent in 
> `PARTITIONED`, even if the task came an `UP` state.

You're right, this should carry the same logic as RUNNING.


- David


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196047
---


On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:02 a.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 23, 2018, 6:02 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham]

> On Jan. 23, 2018, 10:11 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 319 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
> +1
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
> I considered this as at first as well. However, it is the users choice to 
> be in `PARTITIONED` state, so this should not be counted as "cluster-induced 
> downtime". In addition, `PARTITIONED` does not indicate that the task is 
> down. It merely means that we don't know.
> 
> David McLaughlin wrote:
> That was my thought too. They are optimistically still running.

That makes sense. 

Shouldn't we then include the time spent in `PARTITIONED` as `UP` in that case? 
If I am reading it correctly, we will exclude time spent in `PARTITIONED`, even 
if the task came an `UP` state.


- Santhosh Kumar


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196047
---


On Jan. 22, 2018, 10:02 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 22, 2018, 10:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[David McLaughlin]

> On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:11 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 319 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
> +1
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
> I considered this as at first as well. However, it is the users choice to 
> be in `PARTITIONED` state, so this should not be counted as "cluster-induced 
> downtime". In addition, `PARTITIONED` does not indicate that the task is 
> down. It merely means that we don't know.

That was my thought too. They are optimistically still running.


- David


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196047
---


On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:02 a.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 23, 2018, 6:02 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[Bill Farner]

> On Jan. 23, 2018, 10:11 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote:
> > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
> > Lines 319 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?

+1


- Bill


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196047
---


On Jan. 22, 2018, 10:02 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 22, 2018, 10:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196047
---




src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java
Lines 319 (patched)


Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?


- Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham


On Jan. 22, 2018, 10:02 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 22, 2018, 10:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

[Jordan Ly]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196046
---


Ship it!




Nice test for future cases.

- Jordan Ly


On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:02 a.m., David McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Jan. 23, 2018, 6:02 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations. Also added a test to protect 
> against this test failing in the future.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java 
> 5d8d5bd8f705770979f284d26d2e932aabe707e5 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithmTest.java 
> 2e719ac6b7aea86faa22deff2cc6b5f73135761c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> ./gradlew test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David McLaughlin
> 
>