I agree it is a valuable component. However, I think that until it has test coverage we should consider it an unsupported tool. Filed AURORA-1131 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1131>. This is already on my radar as part of AURORA-1027 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1027>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > Moving parts should either provide value or be obliterated from our > source tree. > > I generally agree. In this particular case it's still unclear to me - > in the absence of Thermos CLI and Observer, how do we conduct live > site executor/thermos troubleshooting? > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> I think we would be better served by advertising it as an > >> optional component that provides operators and users with debugging > >> ability. > > > > > > Slightly tangential discussion, but i think we should be very skeptical > of > > fringe components. Moving parts should either provide value or be > > obliterated from our source tree. > > > > -=Bill > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> One thing I would like to point out is the thermos CLI is not required > for > >> Aurora operation. I think we would be better served by advertising it > as an > >> optional component that provides operators and users with debugging > >> ability. > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Joseph Smith <yasumo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > I believe it absolutely is- ideally as we deprecate the Observer, we > can > >> > then lean on the Mesos Slave for this information instead. This will > >> > further decrease the number of moving pieces, simplifying the > operation > >> of > >> > an Aurora/Mesos cluster. > >> > > >> > > On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Joe, > >> > > > >> > > If I understand Brian's proposal correctly < > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aurora-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCAFTdr0DZvH21tR=NLK0qP-Y9-oL9SyULy6GLah=capuw0sv...@mail.gmail.com%3E > >> > >, > >> > > we are going to depreciate the Observer. This combined with your > >> proposal > >> > > will make the executor the only component that can read the thermos > >> > > checkpoints and produce some output that is human readable. Is that > >> > > something we want to do? > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Joseph Smith <yasumo...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> > >> > >> After reviewing the functionality offered by the Thermos > Commandline > >> > tool > >> > >> vs. what’s exported via the Thermos Observer, I was hoping to bring > >> up a > >> > >> question I had: > >> > >> > >> > >> Can we deprecate the Thermos CLI? > >> > >> > >> > >> Removing this would decrease the number of components required for > a > >> > >> functional Aurora installation (a huge victory, in my opinion) and > >> also > >> > >> enable the Observer to fully take over the duty of providing > >> visibility > >> > >> into what’s running on a most. In addition, maintenance is > performed > >> via > >> > >> the HostMaintenance API < > >> > >> > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/src/main/python/apache/aurora/admin/host_maintenance.py#L26 > >> > > > >> > >> and should not be done using thermos kill, which would cause LOST > >> tasks. > >> > >> > >> > >> That said, removing this tool makes it much more difficult for > Thermos > >> > to > >> > >> be used as a monit <http://mmonit.com/monit/> replacement, which > is > >> > >> actually rather feasible now. In addition, it also forces people to > >> > >> remember + learn the port the Observer is running on in order to > get > >> > >> information about tasks. > >> > >> > >> > >> Any thoughts and opinions would be much appreciated! > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Zameer Manji > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Zameer Manji > >> > > >> > > >> >
