Hey Zameer, great questions. Let us know if there's anything you think
could be improved or documented better.

Re 1:

The 'Viewing maintenance status' section of the documentation should
clarify this:

Re 2:

Both of these sound reasonable but the scheduler should not accept the
maintenance if it's not yet safe for the machine to be downed. Otherwise a
task failure may be mistakenly interpreted as a go ahead to down the
machine, despite the scheduler needing to get the task back running. If
expensive or long running work needs to finish (e.g. migrate data, replace
instances in a manner that doesn't violate SLA, etc.) then I would suggest
waiting until the work completes safely before accepting.

We likely need a third state like, TENTATIVELY_ACCEPT to signal to
operators / mesos that the framework intends to comply, but hasn't finished
whatever it needs to do yet for it to be safe to down the machine.

Also, one of the challenges here is when to take the action. Should the
scheduler prepare itself for maintenance as soon as it safely can? Or as
late (but not too late!) as it safely can? If the scheduler runs
long-running services, as soon as safely possible makes sense. If the
scheduler runs short running batch jobs, as late as safely possible
provides work-conservation.

Re 3:

The framework will receive another inverse offer if the framework still has
resources allocated on that agent. If receiving a regular offer for
available resources on the agent, an 'Unavailability' [1] will be included
if the machine is scheduled for maintenance, so that the scheduler can be
aware of the maintenance when placing new work.

Re 4:

It's not possible currently, and it's the operator's responsibility (the
intention was for "operator" to be maintenance tooling). Ideally we can add
automation of this decision into mesos, if decision criteria that is widely
applicable can be established (e.g. if nothing is running and all relevant
frameworks have accepted). Feel free to file a ticket for this or any other


[1] https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/8f487beb9f8aaed8f27b0404279b1a

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hey,
> I'm trying to understand some nuances of the maintenance API. Here are my
> questions:
> 1. The documentation mentions that accepting or declining and inverse
> offer is a "hint" to the operator. How do operators view if a framework has
> declined, accepted or ignored an inverse offer?
> 2. Should a framework accept an inverse offer and then start removing
> tasks from an agent or should the framework only accept the inverse offer
> after the removal of tasks is complete? I think the former makes sense, but
> it implies that operators need to poll the state of the agent to ensure
> there are no active tasks whereas the latter implies operators only need to
> check if all inverse offers were accepted.
> 3. After accepting the inverse offer, will a framework get another inverse
> offer for the same agent? Currently I'm trying to determine if inverse
> offer information needs to be persisted so a framework can continue it's
> draining work between failovers or if it can just wait for an inverse offer
> after starting up.
> 4. Is it possible for the agent to automatically transition from DRAIN to
> DOWN if at the start of the unavailability period the agent is free of
> tasks or is that still the operator's responsibility?
> --
> Zameer Manji

Reply via email to