I am doing a similar thing, where I have a process which spawns up a fixed set of tasks, each assigned to a specific period of work, so each task name is constant, and if a task fails another is restarted with the same name. So I think this approach should work fine.
On 7/10/15, 1:06 PM, "Sargun Dhillon" <[email protected]> wrote: >Is reusing Task IDs good behaviour? Let's say that I have some >singleton task - I'll call it a monitoring service. It's always going >to be the same process, doing the same thing, and there will only ever >be one around (per instance of a framework). Reading the protobuf doc, >I learned this: > > >/** > * A framework generated ID to distinguish a task. The ID must remain > * unique while the task is active. However, a framework can reuse an > * ID _only_ if a previous task with the same ID has reached a > * terminal state (e.g., TASK_FINISHED, TASK_LOST, TASK_KILLED, etc.). > */ >message TaskID { > required string value = 1; >} >--- >Which makes me think that it's reasonable to just give this task the >same taskID, and that every time I bring it from a terminal status to >running once more, I can reuse the same ID. This also gives me the >benefit of being able to more easily locate the task for a given >framework, and I'm able to exploit Mesos for some weak guarantees >saying there wont be multiple of these running (don't worry, they lock >in Zookeeper, and concurrent runs don't do anything, they just fail). > >Opinions?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
