Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/#review115797 --- Ship it! - Ben Mahler On Jan. 22, 2016, 1:24 a.m., Alexander Ruk

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/ --- (Updated Jan. 22, 2016, 1:24 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Jor

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 544-560 > > > > > > In the bottom section of this test, I'm not sure folks without our > > context will understa

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 449-451 > > > > > > Why mention expiration between two consecutive allocations here? The > > way I had been thin

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 21, 2016, 7:17 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > Thanks Alex, code change looks great. Feel free to split the fix and the > > tests into different patches if you like. > > > > Is there also an existing test for an offer filter being larger than the > > allocation timeout? There is no test

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/#review115583 --- Thanks Alex, code change looks great. Feel free to split the fix an

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 20, 2016, 9:49 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > One question: Say allocation interval is 10s, at the time 5s, framework > > sets a filter with 3s, so with this patch, we will expire the filter 10s > > (max(10, 3)) later, i.e., at the time 15s. Then at the time of 10s (the > > next allocat

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On 一月 20, 2016, 2:41 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote: > > What about inverseOfferFilter? > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > I don't think it is affected by MESOS-4302 because we do not "inverse > re-offer" agents inverse-filtered by frameworks. However, we may consider > removing the timeout here

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 20, 2016, 2:41 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote: > > What about inverseOfferFilter? I don't think it is affected by MESOS-4302 because we do not "inverse re-offer" agents inverse-filtered by frameworks. However, we may consider removing the timeout here as well for brevity and consistency. I'

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 20, 2016, 1:49 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > One question: Say allocation interval is 10s, at the time 5s, framework > > sets a filter with 3s, so with this patch, we will expire the filter 10s > > (max(10, 3)) later, i.e., at the time 15s. Then at the time of 10s (the > > next allocat

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/#review115347 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [42355] Passed command: expor

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/#review115327 --- What about inverseOfferFilter? - Guangya Liu On 一月 19, 2016, 11:

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 20, 2016, 1:49 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > One question: Say allocation interval is 10s, at the time 5s, framework > > sets a filter with 3s, so with this patch, we will expire the filter 10s > > (max(10, 3)) later, i.e., at the time 15s. Then at the time of 10s (the > > next allocat

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

> On Jan. 20, 2016, 9:49 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > One question: Say allocation interval is 10s, at the time 5s, framework > > sets a filter with 3s, so with this patch, we will expire the filter 10s > > (max(10, 3)) later, i.e., at the time 15s. Then at the time of 10s (the > > next allocat

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/#review115315 --- One question: Say allocation interval is 10s, at the time 5s, frame

Re: Review Request 42355: Removed the timeout from the filter.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42355/ --- (Updated Jan. 19, 2016, 11:32 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Jo