> On Aug. 21, 2015, 11:35 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 917-920 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line917> > > > > I think the name `Unavailability` is too specific to maintenance, how > > about something more generic, like `Period`? > > > > I'm thinking about a use case, when a custom allocator uses > > InverseOffers to ask a framework to release resources. In this case, we > > need a "timeout", which is naturally expressed by `unavailability.start`. > > Given we don't need duration in this case, the name can be misleading for > > users. > > Joseph Wu wrote: > A while ago, I posted a few diffs where this object was called `Interval` > (https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/7/). The reason why it was changed > back to `Unavailability` is that we may wish to extend this object to be more > specific, in the future. > > (We've already removed all the maintenance-specific language in the > comments for `Unavailability` and `InverseOffer`.) > > Taking your example, the custom allocator asks for resources back. It > says that these will be unavailable by the `start` time. Duration is > optional; in the case of maintenance, when `duration` is omitted, it means > the duration is forever or unknown. > I think the term also works for non-maintenance uses. > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > For me "unavailability" implies the resources will be given back once the > period (interval) is over. Unless resource are reserved, this is not the > case, since allocator has no obligations to offer resources to prior users > once unavailability period is over. > > In an offline conversation, Joris pointed out, that unavailability events > are mostly interesting for stateful frameworks, which most probably will have > reservations for resources. If you plan to leave current term, could you > please reflect in the comment what unavailability guarantees and what it does > not?
Updated the comments. Let me know what you think. - Joseph ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96073 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, > Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations. > MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers. > > No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, > see MESOS-1474). > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Joseph Wu > >
