Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-yarn-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-yarn-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30A12108E1 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49708 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2013 14:00:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-yarn-issues-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 49558 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2013 14:00:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 49543 invoked by uid 99); 20 Sep 2013 14:00:54 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:00:54 +0000 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:00:54 +0000 (UTC) From: "Jason Lowe (JIRA)" To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-819) ResourceManager and NodeManager should check for a minimum allowed version MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-819?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13773019#comment-13773019 ] Jason Lowe commented on YARN-819: --------------------------------- Just to be clear, is it required to make these changes? I was under the impression these configs were a safety net in case there was a truly incompatible change between YARN versions. They allow the participants to reject connections when they detect an incompatible pairing. If we do have truly incompatible versions for some reason then rolling upgrades across those versions are out of the question because upgrading the resourcemanager to the new version first instantly makes it unable to work properly with all the nodes running the older version, and upgrading a nodemanager first instantly makes it unable to work properly with the older resourcemanager. I would expect a normal rolling upgrade case to not touch these configs. They would be set to the earliest version that can properly participate in the cluster and typically not change unless a new version became incompatible with one or more older versions that used to work. Having separate RM vs NM configs allows ops to use them as an enforcement tool if they desire a homogeneous YARN version across the cluster, but that requires reconfigs of the RM and nodes before the rolling upgrade can start and reconfigs after the rolling upgrade is complete. > ResourceManager and NodeManager should check for a minimum allowed version > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-819 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-819 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: nodemanager, resourcemanager > Affects Versions: 2.0.4-alpha > Reporter: Robert Parker > Assignee: Robert Parker > Attachments: YARN-819-1.patch, YARN-819-2.patch > > > Our use case is during upgrade on a large cluster several NodeManagers may not restart with the new version. Once the RM comes back up the NodeManager will re-register without issue to the RM. > The NM should report the version the RM. The RM should have a configuration to disallow the check (default), equal to the RM (to prevent config change for each release), equal to or greater than RM (to allow NM upgrades), and finally an explicit version or version range. > The RM should also have an configuration on how to treat the mismatch: REJECT, or REBOOT the NM. -- 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