[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13570619#comment-13570619 ] 

Robert Joseph Evans commented on YARN-371:
------------------------------------------

I didn't really expect them to be trivial :). So I think that there may be some value in having a different protocol, but we need some hard numbers to be able to really make an informed decision.

I would like to see the size of a request in the following table (both in memory size on the RM and size sent over the wire)

||nodes(down)/tasks(across)||1,000||10,000||100,000||500,000||
||100|?|?|?|?|
||1,000|?|?|?|?|
||4,000|?|?|?|?|
||10,000|?|?|?|?| 

It would also be great to see in practice how bad is the scheduling problem where the wrong node is sent.
                
> Resource-centric compression in AM-RM protocol limits scheduling
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-371
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-371
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: api, resourcemanager, scheduler
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.2-alpha
>            Reporter: Sandy Ryza
>            Assignee: Sandy Ryza
>
> Each AMRM heartbeat consists of a list of resource requests. Currently, each resource request consists of a container count, a resource vector, and a location, which may be a node, a rack, or "*". When an application wishes to request a task run in multiple localtions, it must issue a request for each location.  This means that for a node-local task, it must issue three requests, one at the node-level, one at the rack-level, and one with * (any). These requests are not linked with each other, so when a container is allocated for one of them, the RM has no way of knowing which others to get rid of. When a node-local container is allocated, this is handled by decrementing the number of requests on that node's rack and in *. But when the scheduler allocates a task with a node-local request on its rack, the request on the node is left there.  This can cause delay-scheduling to try to assign a container on a node that nobody cares about anymore.
> Additionally, unless I am missing something, the current model does not allow requests for containers only on a specific node or specific rack. While this is not a use case for MapReduce currently, it is conceivable that it might be something useful to support in the future, for example to schedule long-running services that persist state in a particular location, or for applications that generally care less about latency than data-locality.
> Lastly, the ability to understand which requests are for the same task will possibly allow future schedulers to make more intelligent scheduling decisions, as well as permit a more exact understanding of request load.
> I would propose the tweak of allowing a single ResourceRequest to encapsulate all the location information for a task.  So instead of just a single location, a ResourceRequest would contain an array of locations, including nodes that it would be happy with, racks that it would be happy with, and possibly *.  Side effects of this change would be a reduction in the amount of data that needs to be transferred in a heartbeat, as well in as the RM's memory footprint, becaused what used to be different requests for the same task are now able to share some common data.
> While this change breaks compatibility, if it is going to happen, it makes sense to do it now, before YARN becomes beta.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira