So that is pretty much what I proposed...
If the method signature has to change, we can keep the executorId as it is,
unless we want to take this opportunity to clean that up. I will check if
the SHUTDOWN works in non-executor cases also.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote:
> We still need "Agent ID" for the shutdown call.
>
>
> Darn. In that case, how about we change the method signature in Driver to
> accept agentId and ignore that param in MesosSchedulerDriver.
>
> But do we really need the command line option?
>
>
> Aurora can run tasks without an executor. I'm assuming the shutdown call
> is incompatible with that mode.
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mohit Jaggi <mohit.ja...@uber.com> wrote:
>
>> We still need "Agent ID" for the shutdown call.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mohit Jaggi <mohit.ja...@uber.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds good. But do we really need the command line option? One can use
>>> an older Driver if KILL is preferred for some reason.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This situation is much simpler if task ID == executor ID. I can't come
>>>> up with a good reason why this is not the case today. Our executor IDs
>>>> originally included static prefix, though i do not recall any rationale for
>>>> this. When Renan added custom executor support, this static prefix was
>>>> made configurable. Again, i do not believe there was any rationale for the
>>>> utility of executor IDs.
>>>>
>>>> I propose the following:
>>>> - Change relevant code in MesosTaskFactory to
>>>> setExecutorId(task.getTaskId())
>>>> - Add a command line parameter (default false) to toggle use of
>>>> executor shutdown in VersionedSchedulerDriverService.killTask
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone see an issue with this approach?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Mohit Jaggi <mohit.ja...@uber.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To do this in a backward compatible manner, one way is :
>>>>>
>>>>> ```
>>>>> void destroy(taskId, executorId, agentId) {
>>>>>
>>>>> if(driver instanceOf Versioned....)
>>>>> (Versioned...)driver.shutdown(executorId, agentId)
>>>>> else
>>>>> driver.kill(taskId)
>>>>>
>>>>> }
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> Any other opinions?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:12 AM, David McLaughlin <
>>>>> dmclaugh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I support getting SHUTDOWN in for users of the new API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Mohit Jaggi <mohit.ja...@uber.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that we delay the switch to SHUTDOWN call until
>>>>>>> this working group can resolve the API perf issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, David McLaughlin <
>>>>>>> dmclaugh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are working with Mesos folks to resolve it. There is a Mesos
>>>>>>>> performance working group that folks can join if they'd like to
>>>>>>>> contribute:
>>>>>>>> http://mesos.apache.org/blog/performance-working-group-progr
>>>>>>>> ess-report/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by branch. Everything we used to scale
>>>>>>>> test is on master.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Meghdoot bhattacharya <
>>>>>>>> meghdoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David, should twitter try against mesos 1.5 to see if things are
>>>>>>>>> better with the new api instead of libmesos. This is going to be a
>>>>>>>>> drift
>>>>>>>>> over time that will stop us from adopting new features.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it was sometime back it would be good to rerun the tests and
>>>>>>>>> open a ticket in Mesos if issues exist. All aurora users can then
>>>>>>>>> push for
>>>>>>>>> resolution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also details on branch etc that has the api integration?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 12, 2018, at 11:39 AM, David McLaughlin <
>>>>>>>>> dmclaugh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I agree with the summary. Bill's proposal was using
>>>>>>>>> shutdown only when using the new API. I would also support this if
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Mohit Jaggi <
>>>>>>>>> mohit.ja...@uber.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Summary so far:
>>>>>>>>>> - Bill supports making this change
>>>>>>>>>> - This change cannot be made in a backward compatible manner
>>>>>>>>>> - David (Twitter) does not want to use HTTP APIs due to
>>>>>>>>>> performance concerns. I conclude that folks from Twitter don't
>>>>>>>>>> support this
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Question:
>>>>>>>>>> - Are there other users that want this change?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
