[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15935435#comment-15935435
]
Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham commented on AURORA-1908:
---------------------------------------------------
Plus we can improve the way resource increment happens now to explicitly check
that either there was no Veto or the Veto was due to insufficient resources.
> Short-circuit preemption filtering when a Veto applies to entire host
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AURORA-1908
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1908
> Project: Aurora
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham
> Priority: Minor
>
> When matching a {{ResourceRequest}} against a {{UnusedResource}} in
> {{SchedulerFilterImpl.filter}} there are 4 kinds of {{Veto}}es that can be
> returned. 3 out of the 4 {{Veto}}es apply to the entire host (namely
> {{DEDICATED_CONSTRAINT_MISMATCH}}, {{MAINTENANCE}}, {{LIMIT_NOT_SATISFIED}}
> or {{CONSTRAINT_MISMATCH}}). In this case we can short-circuit and return
> early and move on to the next host to consider.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
