apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amol Kekre <a...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: "ExcludeNodes" for an Apex application
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:15:15 GMT
Stram exclude node should be via Yarn, poison pill is not a good way as it
induces a terminate for wrong reasons.

Thks
Amol


On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Munagala Ramanath <ram@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> Could STRAM include a poison pill where it simply exits with diagnostic if
> its host name is blacklisted ?
>
> Ram
>
> 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