[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4339?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15108142#comment-15108142
 ] 

Fan Du commented on MESOS-4339:
-------------------------------

[~adam-mesos] and [~bbannier]
Based on the proposal documentation from MESOS-4284, it's well justified to 
enable weighted DRF framework sorter in a multi-role scenario, to keep the 
allocation decision fair across roles and frameworks. Although the work to 
support weighted DRF framework sorter is independent with that of multi-role 
frameworks in its design logic(which is what I thought before incompletely) 
but, the former needed to be done *AFTER* multi-role frameworks apparently in 
implementation.

So I'm wondering if you don't mind, I would still like to contribute this 
ticket to multi-role frameworks.

> Add weight support for framework sorter
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MESOS-4339
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4339
>             Project: Mesos
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: allocation
>            Reporter: Fan Du
>            Assignee: Fan Du
>
> Current framework sorter doesn't take into account of weights when sorting 
> framework belonging to a particular role, i.e., all frameworks has equal 
> weights as 1. Considering the role weight is controlled by the operator, 
> enable the framework weight does not impact the role level allocation 
> decision from any greedy frameworks, but it will be beneficial to some 
> framework who could get more resources within a specific role.
> The framework weight will come from message FrameworkInfo when it got 
> registered, and FrameworkSorters will "add" framework with weight,
> this will eventually result a weighted framework sorting flow when master 
> make the finally allocation decision.
> Please review this ticket which I will work on if it's considered acceptable.
> Thanks a lot.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to