[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6136?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15475329#comment-15475329
 ] 

Christopher Hunt commented on MESOS-6136:
-----------------------------------------

Thanks - sounds reasonable.

I still think that failover_timeout has a place though. I like what Mesos does 
in terms of preventing a framework to rejoin given the inconsistent state of 
tasks. I also want that the operator explicitly clears this condition by either 
killing all tasks so that Mesos can subsequently accept the same framework id, 
or by leaving the tasks and allowing the framework to join and clean up its own 
tasks. Perhaps /teardown for the former, and a new one, /accept for the latter.

> Duplicate framework id handling
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MESOS-6136
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6136
>             Project: Mesos
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: general
>    Affects Versions: 0.28.1
>         Environment: DCOS 1.7 Cloud Formation scripts
>            Reporter: Christopher Hunt
>            Priority: Critical
>              Labels: framework, lifecyclemanagement, task
>
> We have observed a situation where Mesos will kill tasks belonging to a 
> framework where that framework times out with the Mesos master for some 
> reason, perhaps even because of a network partition.
> While we can provide a long timeout so that Mesos will not kill a framework's 
> tasks for practical purposes, I'm wondering if there's an improvement where a 
> framework shouldn't be permitted to re-register for a given id (as now), but 
> Mesos doesn't also kill tasks? What I'm thinking is that Mesos could be 
> "told" by an operator that this condition should be cleared.
> IMHO frameworks should be the only entity requesting that tasks be killed 
> unless manually overridden by an operator.
> I'm flagging this as a critical improvement because a) the focus should be on 
> keeping tasks running in a system, and it isn't; and b) Mesos is working as 
> designed. 
> In summary I feel that Mesos is taking on a responsibility in killing tasks 
> where it shouldn't be.



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

Reply via email to