Hi Qian, Thanks for the update and I apologize the response time.
Do you have a PoC implementation of your proposal? I have trouble understanding the motivation of _not_ adding resizing as a usual operation. It seems much cleaner in my mind. To David G's and Alex R's comment: if you want to resize without an offer (during task shrinking), you could do it with an empty offer list. Giving up combining task resizing with the other operations (which will most likely scale with upcoming features) is a big loss, but maybe I am missing something. Secondly, whether the new desired resource shape requires growing and shrinking, I think should be dictated by the resource type itself rather than explicitly set by the framework writer. You have to do that math anyway to figure out whether the framework's request is valid, no? We can do a online sync soon, if you want to give a pitch on the design. Cheers, Niklas On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Qian Zhang <zhq527...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am currently working on task resizing (MESOS-938), and have drafted a > design doc (see the link below). > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rVmS2AXLzTDSEugAVDxWuHFUentp82KhL2yzxBCsi8/edit?usp=sharing > > > Please feel free to review it, any comments are welcome, thanks! > > > Regards, > Qian > -- Niklas
