You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mesos.apache.org by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com> on 2012/03/23 02:16:28 UTC
Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
Summary
-------
Sorry for the huge CL!
Slave restarts now supports recovery!
--> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
--> Re-connects to live executors
--> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
--> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
This addresses bug mesos-110.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
Diffs
-----
src/Makefile.am 090c07a
src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
src/common/utils.hpp 015fef8
src/exec/exec.cpp 53f7e54
src/launcher/launcher.cpp 98a4847
src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
src/local/local.cpp affe432
src/master/master.cpp 6ae8aef
src/messages/messages.proto 7f9cffe
src/sched/sched.cpp 43d9717
src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 8c25dd4
src/slave/main.cpp ac780c4
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp e0f3ee8
src/slave/slave.hpp b7bc45a
src/slave/slave.cpp 9332caa
src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 130218d
src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
src/tests/utils.hpp 8c038ce
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
Testing
-------
make check.
Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
Thanks,
Vinod
Re: Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > I've only gotten halfway through ... but there is a bunch here already. I'd like to break this up into at least four patches. (1) The utils stuff that was added. (2) The master changes. (3) The slave::path namespace stuff. (3) The status update manager API + implementation (but not the slave using it yet). And (4) the slave using each of these components, and the executor changes that are included.
> >
> > These comments are across all of those patches, but I'll make future passes on each of those components.
addressed the comments for the utils.hpp part. Will send a review for utils.hpp and protobuf_utils.hpp (forgot to include it in this review) shortly.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 211
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line211>
> >
> > Add that this is at the current file position of the file descriptor.
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 218
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line218>
> >
> > How is this helpful? (If this came from my code, it should be removed.)
it did come from your code. killed it.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 259
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line259>
> >
> > Blah.
fixed format.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 253
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line253>
> >
> > I'd prefer if this did not seek to the beginning and read the file, but rather read from the current position until the end (and have the comment say as much).
line 263 was a bug. fixed it. this line should make sense now!
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 264
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line264>
> >
> > This looks like a bug ('offset' as the third argument?).
good catch! fixed.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 267
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line267>
> >
> > No need for the space here though.
fixed
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 276
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line276>
> >
> > Again, should be killed (only makes sense in a macro).
killed
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 290
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line290>
> >
> > You should refactor the protobuf::read and protobuf::write to use these versions of read and write now as well.
didnt get u?
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 329
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line329>
> >
> > man 3 dirname (and use it please).
aha..done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 532
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line532>
> >
> > s/file_pattern/pattern
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 534
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line534>
> >
> > s/result/results
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 536
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line536>
> >
> > Kill.
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 538
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line538>
> >
> > Why not return a Try instead?
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 546
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line546>
> >
> > Why is this a hack?
because we are using exists() function to check isDir() semantics, based on the knowledge that the entry always exists.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 549
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line549>
> >
> > s/p/result or s/p/path
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/common/utils.hpp, line 555
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103024#file103024line555>
> >
> > Kill.
done
- Vinod
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#review7232
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-04-19 16:53:07, Vinod Kone wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2012-04-19 16:53:07)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Sorry for the huge CL!
>
> Slave restarts now supports recovery!
> --> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
> --> Re-connects with live executors
> --> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
> --> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
>
>
> This addresses bug mesos-110.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/Makefile.am d5edaa2
> src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
> src/common/utils.hpp 1d81e21
> src/exec/exec.cpp e8db407
> src/launcher/launcher.cpp a141b9a
> src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
> src/local/local.cpp affe432
> src/master/master.cpp 4dc9ee0
> src/messages/messages.proto 87e1548
> src/sched/sched.cpp dcadb10
> src/scripts/killtree.sh bceae9d
> src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
> src/slave/http.cpp 19c48a0
> src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 66a2a89
> src/slave/main.cpp 85cba25
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp 2b37d42
> src/slave/slave.hpp 279bc7b
> src/slave/slave.cpp 3358ec4
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/external_tests.cpp d1b20e4
> src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 6772daf
> src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/utils.hpp e81ec82
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check.
>
> Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
>
> Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vinod
>
>
Re: Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > I've only gotten halfway through ... but there is a bunch here already. I'd like to break this up into at least four patches. (1) The utils stuff that was added. (2) The master changes. (3) The slave::path namespace stuff. (3) The status update manager API + implementation (but not the slave using it yet). And (4) the slave using each of these components, and the executor changes that are included.
> >
> > These comments are across all of those patches, but I'll make future passes on each of those components.
>
> Vinod Kone wrote:
> addressed the comments for the utils.hpp part. Will send a review for utils.hpp and protobuf_utils.hpp (forgot to include it in this review) shortly.
patch coming for path refactoring shortly.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.hpp, line 58
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103041#file103041line58>
> >
> > s/follows/follows:
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.hpp, line 66
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103041#file103041line66>
> >
> > What is the framework PID? How is that different than the Executor PID mentioned below?
we need to store framework pid because, when an executor re-registers we need its framework's PID to re-create a new Framework() object.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 218
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103042#file103042line218>
> >
> > Isn't the default workd_dir mentioned in the addOption above /tmp/mesos? If so, "/tmp" should be "/tmp/mesos" here, and we probably don't want "/tmp/mesos/mesos". Just clean this up so people understand expectations (i.e., should work_dir be a path including the "mesos" directory, or will we create that ourselves).
I agree its a bit confusing. The reason I did it this way is to avoid dumping work/meta directories directly under '/tmp' (for eg. when an user specifies work_dir=/tmp).
I'm indifferent on how we want to do this. I will revert back to 'workRootDir = conf.get("work_dir", "/tmp/mesos") + "/work"' for now;
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.hpp, line 56
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103041#file103041line56>
> >
> > I'd like to stick all of this stuff in it's own file and commit this on it's own (with integration in Slave as applicable and tests).
refactored out path stuff into slave/path.hpp
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.hpp, lines 344-345
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103041#file103041line344>
> >
> > What's the difference between "work" and "work root"? Or "meta" and "meta root"?
workRootDir denotes the root directory (conf['work_dir'/mesos/work]) where work directories of a slave are stored. it's not exactly a slave's working directory (that would be workRootDir/slaves/slaveId).
i needed the workRootDir for the path layout stuff.
same goes with metaRootDir
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 2289
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103042#file103042line2289>
> >
> > Pass these into writeFrameworkPID, no need to make this an instance function. More importantly, you should do this for each of these writers/readers.
moved these write/read functions into path.hpp
- Vinod
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#review7232
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-04-19 16:53:07, Vinod Kone wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2012-04-19 16:53:07)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Sorry for the huge CL!
>
> Slave restarts now supports recovery!
> --> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
> --> Re-connects with live executors
> --> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
> --> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
>
>
> This addresses bug mesos-110.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/Makefile.am d5edaa2
> src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
> src/common/utils.hpp 1d81e21
> src/exec/exec.cpp e8db407
> src/launcher/launcher.cpp a141b9a
> src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
> src/local/local.cpp affe432
> src/master/master.cpp 4dc9ee0
> src/messages/messages.proto 87e1548
> src/sched/sched.cpp dcadb10
> src/scripts/killtree.sh bceae9d
> src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
> src/slave/http.cpp 19c48a0
> src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 66a2a89
> src/slave/main.cpp 85cba25
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp 2b37d42
> src/slave/slave.hpp 279bc7b
> src/slave/slave.cpp 3358ec4
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/external_tests.cpp d1b20e4
> src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 6772daf
> src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/utils.hpp e81ec82
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check.
>
> Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
>
> Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vinod
>
>
Re: Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 138
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line138>
> >
> > s/slave "/slave on "
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 176
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line176>
> >
> > Ditto above.
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 667
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line667>
> >
> > I suggest just killing this LOG line and keeping the new one you added below.
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 756
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line756>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 801
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line801>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 848
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line848>
> >
> > s/slave "/slave on "
> >
> > Note also that anytime we are printing out the PID, we're getting the IP, so the hostname is not strictly necessary (there a bunch of these below).
fixed.
reg: hostname, i think having it makes debugging less painful.
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 894
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line894>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 905
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line905>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 947
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line947>
> >
> > ?
reverted
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 978
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line978>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 984
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line984>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 1007
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line1007>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 1020
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line1020>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 1446
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line1446>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 1504
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line1504>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
> On 2012-04-25 22:11:01, Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 1731
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff/3/?file=103029#file103029line1731>
> >
> > s/"("/" ("
done
- Vinod
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#review7232
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-04-19 16:53:07, Vinod Kone wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2012-04-19 16:53:07)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Sorry for the huge CL!
>
> Slave restarts now supports recovery!
> --> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
> --> Re-connects with live executors
> --> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
> --> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
>
>
> This addresses bug mesos-110.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/Makefile.am d5edaa2
> src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
> src/common/utils.hpp 1d81e21
> src/exec/exec.cpp e8db407
> src/launcher/launcher.cpp a141b9a
> src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
> src/local/local.cpp affe432
> src/master/master.cpp 4dc9ee0
> src/messages/messages.proto 87e1548
> src/sched/sched.cpp dcadb10
> src/scripts/killtree.sh bceae9d
> src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
> src/slave/http.cpp 19c48a0
> src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 66a2a89
> src/slave/main.cpp 85cba25
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp 2b37d42
> src/slave/slave.hpp 279bc7b
> src/slave/slave.cpp 3358ec4
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/external_tests.cpp d1b20e4
> src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 6772daf
> src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/utils.hpp e81ec82
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check.
>
> Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
>
> Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vinod
>
>
Re: Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
Posted by Benjamin Hindman <be...@berkeley.edu>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#review7232
-----------------------------------------------------------
I've only gotten halfway through ... but there is a bunch here already. I'd like to break this up into at least four patches. (1) The utils stuff that was added. (2) The master changes. (3) The slave::path namespace stuff. (3) The status update manager API + implementation (but not the slave using it yet). And (4) the slave using each of these components, and the executor changes that are included.
These comments are across all of those patches, but I'll make future passes on each of those components.
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15918>
Result is deprecated. If we can replace it with Try, please do.
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15920>
Add that this is at the current file position of the file descriptor.
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15919>
How is this helpful? (If this came from my code, it should be removed.)
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15926>
I'd prefer if this did not seek to the beginning and read the file, but rather read from the current position until the end (and have the comment say as much).
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15924>
Blah.
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15923>
This looks like a bug ('offset' as the third argument?).
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15925>
No need for the space here though.
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15927>
Again, should be killed (only makes sense in a macro).
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15928>
You should refactor the protobuf::read and protobuf::write to use these versions of read and write now as well.
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15929>
man 3 dirname (and use it please).
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15930>
s/file_pattern/pattern
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15932>
s/result/results
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15936>
Kill.
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15931>
Why not return a Try instead?
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15935>
Why is this a hack?
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15933>
s/p/result or s/p/path
src/common/utils.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15934>
Kill.
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15949>
It is not possible that the SlaveInfo could have changed? It seems like that needs to get passed along as well.
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15937>
s/on/to
Also, put this after the CHECK below.
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15943>
Should this be a 'shutdown' instead of a CHECK?
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15939>
s/ Expected/, expected
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15940>
s/ Received/, received
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15941>
s/UPID/const UPID&
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15942>
Space.
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15944>
This relies on a side-effect of shutdown, namely that it calls exit(0). But that means if we try and test this case in "local" mode we'll end up falling out of this if block and executing the rest of the code in this function. Please fix.
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15945>
This needs a comment about why it's the case that a task will only ever be sent from the slave to the executor once (and thus, the check is warranted).
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15947>
Maybe we only do this in the else branch below?
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15948>
I'd prefer to call 'shutdown' here, even if it means revisiting/refactoring that function given my comments above.
src/exec/exec.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15946>
I'd prefer to just call this 'tasks'.
src/launcher/launcher.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15950>
Kill.
src/local/local.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15951>
s/recovery/recover
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15952>
s/slave "/slave on "
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15953>
Ditto above.
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15954>
I suggest just killing this LOG line and keeping the new one you added below.
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15955>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15956>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15957>
s/slave "/slave on "
Note also that anytime we are printing out the PID, we're getting the IP, so the hostname is not strictly necessary (there a bunch of these below).
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15958>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15959>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15960>
?
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15961>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15962>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15963>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15964>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15965>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15966>
s/"("/" ("
src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15967>
s/"("/" ("
src/messages/messages.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15969>
Newline.
src/messages/messages.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15968>
Newline.
src/messages/messages.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15970>
Seems like having the SlaveInfo would be a good thing (maybe the slave port changed? maybe other things will be added in the future that could change?).
src/scripts/killtree.sh
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15971>
How about:
echo "$(basename ${0}): '${PID}' should be a number"
src/slave/constants.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15972>
This seems low ... ?
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15973>
Please don't use snake_case.
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15978>
So, this is identical to what's in process_based_isolation_module.cpp. At the time of designing this with you my thought was that we would be writing "different" data to disk. In particular, this might be isolation module "specific" data. I think the right model here is really to have the isolation module know what the meta directory is for the executor and have it's own well defined place where it can write data. In LXC's case, we'll want to probably write not just the pid but also the container name.
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15975>
So, if we are just given the directory for this executor we could just recover the file that we expected to write (above). If we somehow need to get this from the pid_t passed in, then we'll need to have the location for the 'cgroup' directory, from which we can look at all /path/to/cgroup/*/tasks to see if this pid is a parent of one of those tasks. This should always work.
Again, the alternative will be to have this module actually write some of it's own state to the meta-directory, e.g., the name of this container. This might require calling IsolationModule::recover in the slave earlier though.
src/slave/main.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15979>
I'd prefer to type on the command line:
/path/to/mesos-slave --recover
rather than:
/path/to/mesos-slave --recovery
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15981>
Remove newline.
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15982>
Why'd you move this?
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15983>
Not used (and it's deprecated).
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15984>
I'm not a fan of this factored out. It's not that much code, and I'd prefer to see exactly what's happening here.
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15985>
Doesn't this happen automagically because the reaper tells us about all child processes exiting/terminating?
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15988>
I'd like to stick all of this stuff in it's own file and commit this on it's own (with integration in Slave as applicable and tests).
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15986>
s/follows/follows:
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15987>
What is the framework PID? How is that different than the Executor PID mentioned below?
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15989>
Why not just get reconnect from configuration rather than passing it in here and having another default?
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15990>
No snake_case please.
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15991>
Kill.
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15992>
What's the difference between "work" and "work root"? Or "meta" and "meta root"?
src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15993>
Makes me think it shouldn't be an instance variable or recovery needs to be factored out into it's own process ... I think we briefly talked about this though.
src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15994>
I'm afraid that even this might be too complicated. We might want a single option 'recover', that takes a string instead of a bool, which specifies "how" to recover. For example, --recover=reconnect might mean recover the state and executors, where as --recover=upgrade might mean recover the state but then kill all executors (and create/send appropriate status updates). That way, when an operator goes to restart mesos, they are forced to specify how recovery is done, rather than specifying one option (e.g, --recover) and forgetting the other one and making a mistake. (Note, "reconnect" and "upgrade" might not be the best names. Also, doing it this way might make the name 'recovery' instead of 'recover' work ... e.g., --recovery=reconnect could be read as "the recovery strategy is reconnect to the executors".)
src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15995>
Isn't the default workd_dir mentioned in the addOption above /tmp/mesos? If so, "/tmp" should be "/tmp/mesos" here, and we probably don't want "/tmp/mesos/mesos". Just clean this up so people understand expectations (i.e., should work_dir be a path including the "mesos" directory, or will we create that ourselves).
src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15996>
All the more reason to merge the options.
src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15997>
s/Skipping/Delaying
Also, let's make this LOG(WARNING).
src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment15999>
You should just return a value (let the compiler optimize the move), no need to allocate on heap. In this tiny bit of code you even forget to free the object! Also, createTask does not appear to be in this review. Let's stick it in it's own review that gets committed ASAP.
src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/#comment16001>
Pass these into writeFrameworkPID, no need to make this an instance function. More importantly, you should do this for each of these writers/readers.
- Benjamin
On 2012-04-19 16:53:07, Vinod Kone wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2012-04-19 16:53:07)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Sorry for the huge CL!
>
> Slave restarts now supports recovery!
> --> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
> --> Re-connects with live executors
> --> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
> --> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
>
>
> This addresses bug mesos-110.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/Makefile.am d5edaa2
> src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
> src/common/utils.hpp 1d81e21
> src/exec/exec.cpp e8db407
> src/launcher/launcher.cpp a141b9a
> src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
> src/local/local.cpp affe432
> src/master/master.cpp 4dc9ee0
> src/messages/messages.proto 87e1548
> src/sched/sched.cpp dcadb10
> src/scripts/killtree.sh bceae9d
> src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
> src/slave/http.cpp 19c48a0
> src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
> src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 66a2a89
> src/slave/main.cpp 85cba25
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp 2b37d42
> src/slave/slave.hpp 279bc7b
> src/slave/slave.cpp 3358ec4
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION
> src/slave/statusupdates_manager.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/external_tests.cpp d1b20e4
> src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 6772daf
> src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/tests/utils.hpp e81ec82
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check.
>
> Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
>
> Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vinod
>
>
Re: Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated 2012-04-19 16:53:07.262208)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
Changes
-------
status update manager re-factor.
one of the tests is a bit flaky due to a race. but its a problem with the test, not the slave code. i will fix it after hackweek, meanwhile, if you have cycles take a look.
Summary
-------
Sorry for the huge CL!
Slave restarts now supports recovery!
--> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
--> Re-connects with live executors
--> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
--> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
This addresses bug mesos-110.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
Diffs (updated)
-----
src/Makefile.am d5edaa2
src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
src/common/utils.hpp 1d81e21
src/exec/exec.cpp e8db407
src/launcher/launcher.cpp a141b9a
src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
src/local/local.cpp affe432
src/master/master.cpp 4dc9ee0
src/messages/messages.proto 87e1548
src/sched/sched.cpp dcadb10
src/scripts/killtree.sh bceae9d
src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
src/slave/http.cpp 19c48a0
src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 66a2a89
src/slave/main.cpp 85cba25
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp 2b37d42
src/slave/slave.hpp 279bc7b
src/slave/slave.cpp 3358ec4
src/slave/statusupdates_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION
src/slave/statusupdates_manager.cpp PRE-CREATION
src/tests/external_tests.cpp d1b20e4
src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 6772daf
src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
src/tests/utils.hpp e81ec82
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
Testing
-------
make check.
Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
Thanks,
Vinod
Re: Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated 2012-04-03 20:58:17.982746)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
Changes
-------
merged with trunk
Summary
-------
Sorry for the huge CL!
Slave restarts now supports recovery!
--> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
--> Re-connects with live executors
--> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
--> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
This addresses bug mesos-110.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
Diffs (updated)
-----
src/Makefile.am d5edaa2
src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
src/common/utils.hpp 1d81e21
src/exec/exec.cpp e8db407
src/launcher/launcher.cpp a141b9a
src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
src/local/local.cpp affe432
src/master/master.cpp 4dc9ee0
src/messages/messages.proto 87e1548
src/sched/sched.cpp dcadb10
src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 66a2a89
src/slave/main.cpp 85cba25
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp 2b37d42
src/slave/slave.hpp 279bc7b
src/slave/slave.cpp 3358ec4
src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 6772daf
src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
src/tests/utils.hpp e81ec82
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
Testing
-------
make check.
Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
Thanks,
Vinod
Re: Review Request: Non-disruptive Slave Restart with Recovery!
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated 2012-03-23 01:18:12.046729)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and John Sirois.
Changes
-------
typo
Summary (updated)
-------
Sorry for the huge CL!
Slave restarts now supports recovery!
--> Non-disruptive restart means running tasks are not lost
--> Re-connects with live executors
--> Checkpoints and reliably sends status updates
--> Ability to kill executors if the slave upgrade is incompatible with running executors
This addresses bug mesos-110.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/mesos-110
Diffs
-----
src/Makefile.am 090c07a
src/common/hashset.hpp 1feb610
src/common/utils.hpp 015fef8
src/exec/exec.cpp 53f7e54
src/launcher/launcher.cpp 98a4847
src/local/local.hpp 55f9eaf
src/local/local.cpp affe432
src/master/master.cpp 6ae8aef
src/messages/messages.proto 7f9cffe
src/sched/sched.cpp 43d9717
src/slave/constants.hpp f0c8679
src/slave/isolation_module.hpp c896908
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.hpp b7beefe
src/slave/lxc_isolation_module.cpp 8c25dd4
src/slave/main.cpp ac780c4
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.hpp f6f9554
src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp e0f3ee8
src/slave/slave.hpp b7bc45a
src/slave/slave.cpp 9332caa
src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 130218d
src/tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION
src/tests/utils.hpp 8c038ce
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4462/diff
Testing
-------
make check.
Note that only the new test in tests/slave_restart_tests.cpp engages in recovery!
Recovery is disabled for old tests (though they still checkpoint relevant info!)
Thanks,
Vinod