I will have to take back the question on why I am getting a TASK_LOST; I had a bug that prevented the TASK_COMPLETED to be sent out before exiting. I noticed it only after sending my email out!
However, I'd still like to hear any thoughts on the approach of using one task per executor to simplify my executor code by not having the forking and process management. Plus, the benefit of resource isolation now applying to tasks. Especially if there's reasons not to do this. Thanks. Sharma On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Sharma Podila <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a question on the Executors. I see that a framework can use 1 or > more executors on a slave. At finest granularity, one could launch each > task in a separate executor (our tasks are relatively long lived). This at > least seems like a good choice since resource isolation of executors now > happens for each task. And, I could eliminate the work in my executor of > forking processes to execute tasks. > > When a task completes (either normally or by getting a kill request), I > would like the executor to exit as well. Playing with this, I have the > status of TASK_COMPLETED being sent via the driver, followed by a wait of > about 5 secs (not sure I need this for any mesos communication to happen > for status), and then, say, a System.exit(). However, this is producing a > TASK_LOST to my framework scheduler. Shouldn't the previous sending of > TASK_COMPLETED status prevent the TASK_LOST update? > > I am using Mesos 0.16. > > Sharma > >
