-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31515/#review74583
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/31515/#comment121191>

    s/similarly/similar/ ?



src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/31515/#comment121192>

    why not just "string"?



src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/31515/#comment121193>

    I dont think this should be considered towards the shutdown metric, because 
this is just removal.
    
    s/slave_shutdowns_scheduled/slave_removals_scheduled/



src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/31515/#comment121195>

    ditto.
    
    s/shutdowns/removals/


- Vinod Kone


On Feb. 27, 2015, 2:58 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/31515/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 27, 2015, 2:58 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2392
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2392
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Much like we rate limit slave removals in the common path (MESOS-1148), we 
> need to rate limit slave removals that occur during master recovery. When a 
> master recovers and is using a strict registry, slaves that do not 
> re-register within a timeout will be removed.
> 
> Currently there is a safeguard in place to abort when too many slaves have 
> not re-registered. However, in the case of a transient partition, we don't 
> want to remove large sections of slaves without rate limiting.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.hpp 8c44d6ed57ad1b94a17bef8142a5e6a15889a810 
>   src/master/master.cpp 76e217d16c03e587ea4c0afca94c58b2212f0f93 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31515/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> Added tests in subsequent review.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>

Reply via email to