> On Oct. 15, 2014, 7:23 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 2826
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/26701/diff/1/?file=720977#file720977line2826>
> >
> >     When would the uuids ever be different? If the scheduler re-acked a 
> > previous terminal update when the master expected to be on a second 
> > terminal update/ack?

it could be different because status update manager retries updates. for 
example, SUM sent 2 TASK_RUNNING updates (one of them a retry). before the ACK 
for the 2nd TASK_RUNNING reaches master, if it received a TASK_FINISHED update, 
we would accidentally remove the task on the reception of the 2nd TASK_RUNNING 
ACK.


- Vinod


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26701/#review56656
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 14, 2014, 6:06 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/26701/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 14, 2014, 6:06 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Ben Mahler, and Niklas Nielsen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-1799 and MESOS-1817
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1799
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1817
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Master now maintains the latest and unacknowledged states of the task.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.hpp 14f1d0fd240c9cd0718d0238e1fbb9c733190205 
>   src/master/master.cpp cb46cec0674b3aa031450c5b4f48f4f8bb92767d 
>   src/messages/messages.proto 8de7f9699f43aa2780f4a39fed087abcf5e5af99 
>   src/tests/master_tests.cpp d9dc40c6f5aaa66e1f7a0e1b7e4d9cdc586ca0fd 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/26701/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> Ran the new test 1000 times.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>

Reply via email to