-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#review17197
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/local/local.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36473>

    not yours, but can you adjust the formatting to be compliant with the new 
style? the params should be intended by 4 spaces and start from next line.



src/master/allocator.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36474>

    I'm surprised the master:: qualification was necessary?



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36475>

    initialize whitelisted and available here.



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36478>

    Why did you have to write your own assignment operator here and below for 
framework? Is it just so that you can set 'initialized'?



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36476>

    It might be just me, but I think swapping these variable names makes more 
sense?
    
    I understand you called it 'allocatable' because how its called in the 
allocator. At the least, I think available should be 'sufficient' to be 
consistent with the verb we use in the allocator.



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36479>

    You probably need a check here
    
    CHECK(frameworks.contains(frameworkId));



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36480>

    ditto.



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36481>

    we tend to put the operators at the end when we line wrap.
    
    if (slaves[slaveId].whitelisted &&
        isSufficient(....))



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36482>

    again, i'm surprised you need this qualification.



src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/#comment36483>

    CHECK(frameworks.contains(framweworkId)?


- Vinod Kone


On Feb. 28, 2013, 1:42 a.m., Thomas Marshall wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 28, 2013, 1:42 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Hindman.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Currently, every time we do an allocation we have to traverse the entire list 
> of active slaves an check each one to see if its whitelisted and if it has 
> resources to allocate. This patch keeps a set of all slaves that meet those 
> requirements, and updates it when slaves are added/removed and when resources 
> are allocated/recovered.
> 
> Timing comparisons, using test_framework on a local cluster on my laptop 
> (each number is an average over 10 tests):
> 
> 100 slaves, 100 tasks
> without patch: 5.82s
> with patch: 5.773s
> improvement of about 1%
> 
> 1000 slaves, 100 tasks
> without patch: 8.261s
> with patch: 8.07s
> improvement of about 2%
> 
> Since this was a scalability issue, you'd presumably see a bigger improvement 
> in larger clusters but its difficult to simulate more than 1000 slaves or so 
> locally. If more convincing numbers are needed I can do some testing on EC2 
> (if nothing else, I'm hoping we'll have a Jenkins build with automated 
> performance tests set up later this semester, so I can test this in the 
> process of setting that up), but at the very least it seems clear that the 
> patch improves the runtime complexity of the allocation algorithm and doesn't 
> slow allocations down even in small clusters. 
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/local/local.hpp 2633d25 
>   src/local/local.cpp 3402029 
>   src/master/allocator.hpp b68b67d 
>   src/master/drf_sorter.hpp 79566cc 
>   src/master/drf_sorter.cpp 33a8ec8 
>   src/master/hierarchical_allocator_process.hpp 33e059c 
>   src/master/main.cpp ca0abec 
>   src/master/master.hpp c9b4b3f 
>   src/master/master.cpp 814a6e1 
>   src/master/sorter.hpp 73db6b1 
>   src/tests/allocator_tests.cpp 44d72ad 
>   src/tests/allocator_zookeeper_tests.cpp 5f83dd7 
>   src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 44eef03 
>   src/tests/gc_tests.cpp 411bcc0 
>   src/tests/master_detector_tests.cpp 5d09bab 
>   src/tests/master_tests.cpp e140f40 
>   src/tests/resource_offers_tests.cpp 5981191 
>   src/tests/sorter_tests.cpp 61e6038 
>   src/tests/utils.hpp 4600c2f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6665/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Thomas Marshall
> 
>

Reply via email to