apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Munagala Ramanath <...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: "ExcludeNodes" for an Apex application
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:21:31 GMT
The OP is claiming (in the comment to the first response) that he actually
tried the
proposed solution and it did not work for him and shows the RM code fragment
that is clobbering his preference.

Ram

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Sandesh Hegde <sandesh@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> Yarn allows the AppMaster to run on the selected node, Apex shouldn't
> select the blacklisted nodes, so it is possible to achieve not running the
> Apex containers on certain nodes.
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29302659/run-my-own-
> application-master-on-a-specific-node-in-a-yarn-cluster
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:52 PM Amol Kekre <amol@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
> > Yarn will deploy AM (Stram) on a node of its choice, therey rendering any
> > attribute within the app un-enforceable in terms of not deploying master
> on
> > a node.
> >
> > Thks
> > Amol
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Milind Barve <milindb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Additionally, this would apply to Stram as well i.e. the master should
> > also
> > > not be deployed on these nodes. Not sure if anti-affinity goes beyond
> > > operators.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Milind Barve <milindb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My previous mail explains it, but just forgot to add : -1 to cover
> this
> > > > under anti affinity.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Milind Barve <milindb@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While it is possible to extend anti-affinity to take care of this,
I
> > > feel
> > > >> it will cause confusion from a user perspective. As a user, when I
> > think
> > > >> about anti-affinity, what comes to mind right away is a relative
> > > relation
> > > >> between operators.
> > > >>
> > > >> On the other hand, the current ask is not that, but a relation at
an
> > > >> application level w.r.t. a node. (Further, we might even think of
> > > extending
> > > >> this at an operator level - which would mean do not deploy an
> operator
> > > on a
> > > >> particular node)
> > > >>
> > > >> We would be better off clearly articulating and allowing users to
> > > >> configure it seperately as against using anti-affinity.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> > > bhupesh@datatorrent.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Okay, I think that serves an alternate purpose of detecting any
> newly
> > > >>> gone
> > > >>> bad node and excluding it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1 for covering the original scenario under anti-affinity.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ~ Bhupesh
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Munagala Ramanath <
> > ram@datatorrent.com
> > > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > It only takes effect after failures -- no way to exclude
from the
> > > >>> get-go.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Ram
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Dec 1, 2016 7:15 PM, "Bhupesh Chawda" <
> bhupesh@datatorrent.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > As suggested by Sandesh, the parameter
> > > >>> > > MAX_CONSECUTIVE_CONTAINER_FAILURES_FOR_BLACKLIST seems
to do
> > > exactly
> > > >>> > what
> > > >>> > > is needed.
> > > >>> > > Why would this not work?
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > ~ Bhupesh
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> ~Milind bee at gee mail dot com
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ~Milind bee at gee mail dot com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Milind bee at gee mail dot com
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message