> On Oct. 28, 2013, 10:10 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp, line 1398 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/14669/diff/9/?file=369195#file369195line1398> > > > > If we do that, we need to move the > > > > if (offerError.isSome()) { > > ... > > } > > > > block out as well and propagate the error with another: > > > > if (offerError.isSome()) { > > break; > > } > > > > Or else, an invalid offer won't send a TASK_LOST. > > Do you prefer that approach?
I'm confused. There is already a if(oferError.isSome()) check on #1414. Would that not catch it? > On Oct. 28, 2013, 10:10 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote: > > src/sched/sched.cpp, lines 784-787 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/14669/diff/9/?file=369198#file369198line784> > > > > We need at least one offer to get the pid that goes into > > savedSlavePids. Right now, the savedSlavePids entry is just overwritten > > |offers| times which isn't ideal either. > > > > I have a version now which splits this into three steps: > > > > 1) Find common slave id during the first foreach(... task, tasks) > > > > 2) While adding offer ids to the message, find a common UPID for the > > common slave. > > > > 3) If both slave id and UPID is found, update the savedSlavePids map. > > > > In step 1) and 2), if slave id or pids differ, we report error or > > abort. This is more strict than the previous version. What do you think? Ah I see. That makes sense. - Vinod ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14669/#review27626 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 28, 2013, 11:15 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/14669/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 28, 2013, 11:15 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-749 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-749 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Running tasks on more than one offer belonging to a single slave can be > useful in situations with multiple out-standing offers. > > This patch extends the usual launchTasks() to accept a vector of OfferIDs. > The previous launchTasks (accepting a single OfferID) has been kept for > backward compatibility, but this now calls the new launchTasks() with a > one-element list. > This also applied for the JNI and python interfaces, which accepts both > formats as well. > > Offers are verified to belong to the same slave and framework, before > resources are merged and used. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/scheduler.hpp fa1ffe8 > src/java/jni/org_apache_mesos_MesosSchedulerDriver.cpp 9869929 > src/java/src/org/apache/mesos/MesosSchedulerDriver.java ed4b4a3 > src/java/src/org/apache/mesos/SchedulerDriver.java 93aaa54 > src/master/master.hpp 1eba03f > src/master/master.cpp 1147cc6 > src/messages/messages.proto a5dded2 > src/python/native/mesos_scheduler_driver_impl.cpp 059ed5d > src/sched/sched.cpp 3049096 > src/tests/master_tests.cpp bf790d2 > src/tests/resource_offers_tests.cpp 2864c9a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14669/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Three new tests has been added: LaunchCombinedOfferTest, > LaunchAcrossSlavesTest and LaunchDuplicateOfferTest > This test ensures that: > 1) Multiple offers can be used to run a single task (requesting the sum of > offer resources). > 2) Offers cannot span multiple slaves. > 3) No offers can appear more than once in offer list. > > $ make check > ... > [ RUN ] MasterTest.LaunchCombinedOfferTest > [ OK ] MasterTest.LaunchCombinedOfferTest (2010 ms) > [ RUN ] MasterTest.LaunchAcrossSlavesTest > [ OK ] MasterTest.LaunchAcrossSlavesTest (3 ms) > [ RUN ] MasterTest.LaunchDuplicateOfferTest > [ OK ] MasterTest.LaunchDuplicateOfferTest (3 ms) > ... > > > Thanks, > > Niklas Nielsen > >
