This, btw, will be an excellent opportunity to answer key questions about how informed the resource manager needs to be. Mesos is making a bold claim that negotiation is sufficient to convey the information and that by not conveying resource details that the resource manager is more general. The latter claim is certainly true, but the former doesn't have many years of use in ginormous clusters to prove it yet (no approach to this problem does have that, of course).
HNG is making a much less exciting claim that more information really will make the scheduler better. I think it is uncontroversial that this is likely to be at least epsilon better for the work-loads that HNG is designed for. As such, the HNG design point is a safer one for people with that work-load. Having the ability to observe and compare Mesos and HNG clusters on nearly identical work-loads is one way to get closer to real answers to these questions. The comparisons will necessarily be indirect because no single owner of a thousand node cluster in heavy use is going to set up a second cluster just for the benefit of an experiment, but even indirect information will be exciting. Another option with strange implications is the idea of running HNG under Mesos as a long-lived application or vice versa. I am not sure what that would teach us, but thinking about it can be fun. On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Matei Zaharia <[email protected]>wrote: > we were planning to provide a wrapper that has the same API as the resource > manager in HNG
