On May 16, 2015, 1:03 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
Hi Ian,
I'm wondering about the `Note` regarding only setting the scheduling policy
to IDLE if the initial resources are revocable. I think this exposes many
scenarios where the isolator will seem `enabled` to the operator,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review85810
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [34308, 34309, 34310]
All
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review85799
---
Ship it!
- Vinod Kone
On May 29, 2015, 7:57 p.m., Ian Downes
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review84338
---
LGTM - Can we wire up a test for this?
On May 16, 2015, 4:46 a.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp, line 345
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/diff/1/?file=961963#file961963line345
What if the same set of resources contains both revocable and
non-revocable resources?
Ian
On May 19, 2015, 12:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
My high leve comment:
Lets add the following check/invariant in the master:
An executor and all its tasks should all use regular resources or should
all use revocable resources.
We can relax this policy in the future when we
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/
---
(Updated May 19, 2015, 12:58 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Joris Van
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/
---
(Updated May 19, 2015, 3:43 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Joris Van
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review84353
---
src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/
---
(Updated May 18, 2015, 10:33 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Joris Van
On May 16, 2015, 1:03 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
Hi Ian,
I'm wondering about the `Note` regarding only setting the scheduling policy
to IDLE if the initial resources are revocable. I think this exposes many
scenarios where the isolator will seem `enabled` to the operator,
On May 15, 2015, 9:46 p.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp, line 345
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/diff/1/?file=961963#file961963line345
What if the same set of resources contains both revocable and
non-revocable resources?
Hmm, I
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review84213
---
Bad patch!
Reviews applied: [34308, 34309, 34308]
Failed command:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review84218
---
Bad patch!
Reviews applied: [34308, 34308]
Failed command:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/
---
(Updated May 18, 2015, 1:49 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Joris Van
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/
---
Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34310/#review84024
---
src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp
17 matches
Mail list logo
