You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mesos.apache.org by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com> on 2015/02/12 02:31:44 UTC
Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType => ReserverType,
STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for mesos.
Repository: mesos
Description
-------
## Overview
We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
## Changes
* `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
* `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
* `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
## Remark
In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
Diffs
-----
include/mesos/mesos.proto 3a2921dff856d37455593dcbf7340aa537997d35
src/master/allocator.hpp 2149ea48dd8614dc29350efaddcb43b6a082a43e
src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
src/messages/messages.proto 55b3a24ed05c04eaafc27243477bfc778a72b1d4
src/slave/slave.cpp f39a876cdd6b580a7a75fd053e6923761bee7635
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Michael Park
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Mesos ReviewBot <de...@mesos.apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/#review72100
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [30873]
All tests passed.
- Mesos ReviewBot
On Feb. 12, 2015, 1:33 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Feb. 12, 2015, 1:33 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> ## Overview
>
> We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
>
> ## Changes
>
> * `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
> * `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
> * `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
>
> ## Remark
>
> 1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
> 2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
> This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> include/mesos/mesos.proto 3a2921dff856d37455593dcbf7340aa537997d35
> src/master/allocator.hpp 2149ea48dd8614dc29350efaddcb43b6a082a43e
> src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
> src/messages/messages.proto 55b3a24ed05c04eaafc27243477bfc778a72b1d4
> src/slave/slave.cpp f39a876cdd6b580a7a75fd053e6923761bee7635
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Feb. 17, 2015, 10:31 p.m.)
Review request for mesos.
Changes
-------
Created a JIRA ticket.
Bugs: MESOS-2363
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2363
Repository: mesos
Description
-------
## Overview
We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
## Changes
* `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
* `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
* `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
## Remark
1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
Diffs
-----
include/mesos/mesos.proto 6ece3ea30f9689db435b330422f8dfc08816316a
src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp c2461a32e18dbafe637f37180f86bfa2e1d78735
src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
src/messages/messages.proto 58484ae45071a80afd2b11803dd66a88f88ad9ed
src/slave/slave.cpp ec7ec1356e745bb07484ae1755c9183b038043b3
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Michael Park
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
> On Feb. 17, 2015, 6:49 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 427-429
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/2/?file=864004#file864004line427>
> >
> > Just curious, any particular reason for the spread in tag IDs here?
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Hi Maxim, the reason for this is **Remark 1** in the **Description**: "In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on."
>
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> Ah, thanks, makes sense now! I should've paid more attention to description :) BTW, I really like the ReserverType, much more intuitive.
I really liked it initially as well, but it doesn't quite work well if we want to allow an authorized framework with permissions to make operator level reservations. I think the name ultimately needs to be tied to the level of reservation rather than the reserver. Similar to a Linux environment where there are `SYSTEM` and `USER` level configs and an authorized user with the right permissions is allowed to modify `SYSTEM` level configs but by default a regular user can only change `USER` level configs. Anyway, the naming for these are still in flight and hence the reason for this patch being marked `[WIP]`.
I'll create a JIRA ticket for this to capture essentially what I said here and also to get some suggestions from the community :)
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/#review72756
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> ## Overview
>
> We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
>
> ## Changes
>
> * `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
> * `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
> * `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
>
> ## Remark
>
> 1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
> 2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
> This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> include/mesos/mesos.proto 6ece3ea30f9689db435b330422f8dfc08816316a
> src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp c2461a32e18dbafe637f37180f86bfa2e1d78735
> src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
> src/messages/messages.proto 58484ae45071a80afd2b11803dd66a88f88ad9ed
> src/slave/slave.cpp ec7ec1356e745bb07484ae1755c9183b038043b3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
> On Feb. 17, 2015, 6:49 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 427-429
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/2/?file=864004#file864004line427>
> >
> > Just curious, any particular reason for the spread in tag IDs here?
Hi Maxim, the reason for this is **Remark 1** in the **Description**: "In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on."
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/#review72756
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> ## Overview
>
> We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
>
> ## Changes
>
> * `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
> * `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
> * `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
>
> ## Remark
>
> 1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
> 2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
> This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> include/mesos/mesos.proto 6ece3ea30f9689db435b330422f8dfc08816316a
> src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp c2461a32e18dbafe637f37180f86bfa2e1d78735
> src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
> src/messages/messages.proto 58484ae45071a80afd2b11803dd66a88f88ad9ed
> src/slave/slave.cpp ec7ec1356e745bb07484ae1755c9183b038043b3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org>.
> On Feb. 17, 2015, 6:49 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 427-429
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/2/?file=864004#file864004line427>
> >
> > Just curious, any particular reason for the spread in tag IDs here?
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Hi Maxim, the reason for this is **Remark 1** in the **Description**: "In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on."
Ah, thanks, makes sense now! I should've paid more attention to description :) BTW, I really like the ReserverType, much more intuitive.
- Maxim
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/#review72756
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> ## Overview
>
> We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
>
> ## Changes
>
> * `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
> * `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
> * `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
>
> ## Remark
>
> 1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
> 2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
> This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> include/mesos/mesos.proto 6ece3ea30f9689db435b330422f8dfc08816316a
> src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp c2461a32e18dbafe637f37180f86bfa2e1d78735
> src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
> src/messages/messages.proto 58484ae45071a80afd2b11803dd66a88f88ad9ed
> src/slave/slave.cpp ec7ec1356e745bb07484ae1755c9183b038043b3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/#review72756
-----------------------------------------------------------
include/mesos/mesos.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/#comment118822>
Just curious, any particular reason for the spread in tag IDs here?
- Maxim Khutornenko
On Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> ## Overview
>
> We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
>
> ## Changes
>
> * `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
> * `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
> * `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
>
> ## Remark
>
> 1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
> 2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
> This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> include/mesos/mesos.proto 6ece3ea30f9689db435b330422f8dfc08816316a
> src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp c2461a32e18dbafe637f37180f86bfa2e1d78735
> src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
> src/messages/messages.proto 58484ae45071a80afd2b11803dd66a88f88ad9ed
> src/slave/slave.cpp ec7ec1356e745bb07484ae1755c9183b038043b3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Feb. 14, 2015, 12:28 a.m.)
Review request for mesos.
Repository: mesos
Description
-------
## Overview
We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
## Changes
* `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
* `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
* `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
## Remark
1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
Diffs (updated)
-----
include/mesos/mesos.proto 6ece3ea30f9689db435b330422f8dfc08816316a
src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp c2461a32e18dbafe637f37180f86bfa2e1d78735
src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
src/messages/messages.proto 58484ae45071a80afd2b11803dd66a88f88ad9ed
src/slave/slave.cpp ec7ec1356e745bb07484ae1755c9183b038043b3
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Michael Park
Re: Review Request 30873: [WIP] Renamed: ReservationType =>
ReserverType, STATIC => SLAVE, DYNAMIC => FRAMEWORK.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Feb. 12, 2015, 1:33 a.m.)
Review request for mesos.
Repository: mesos
Description (updated)
-------
## Overview
We'll shortly be allowing operators to dynamically change the reservation configurations of slaves as well. At which point the words `STATIC` and `DYNAMIC` are no longer accurate since the `STATIC` reservations would also be dynamic. We change the terminology here to indicate the source of the reservation, the reserver.
## Changes
* `ReservationType` => `ReserverType`
* `STATIC` => `SLAVE`
* `DYNAMIC` => `FRAMEWORK`
## Remark
1. In `ReserverType`, 0 and 2 are left out for `NONE=0` and `OPERATOR=2` which we plan to introduce later on.
2. This is marked WIP (Work in Progress) since the design of this hasn't been fully approved yet.
This chain of review requests are essentially a prototype.
Diffs
-----
include/mesos/mesos.proto 3a2921dff856d37455593dcbf7340aa537997d35
src/master/allocator.hpp 2149ea48dd8614dc29350efaddcb43b6a082a43e
src/master/master.hpp 6a39df04514c756415354fae66c5835ada191c52
src/messages/messages.proto 55b3a24ed05c04eaafc27243477bfc778a72b1d4
src/slave/slave.cpp f39a876cdd6b580a7a75fd053e6923761bee7635
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30873/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Michael Park