hadoop-yarn-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (YARN-884) AM expiry interval should be set to smaller of {am, nm}.liveness-monitor.expiry-interval-ms
Date Sat, 19 Oct 2013 00:07:42 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-884?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13799675#comment-13799675
] 

Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli commented on YARN-884:
----------------------------------------------

bq. Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli, partly agree with you that they are two different knobs. However,
at least in the current implementation, restarting an NM cleans up all the containers on it
(correct me if I am wrong) including the AM. In that scenario, having a higher value for AM_EXPIRY
will only delay starting the AM. No?
That is just a temporary artifact of us not having work-preserving restart. That shouldn't
change our meaning of long term configuration properties.

> AM expiry interval should be set to smaller of {am, nm}.liveness-monitor.expiry-interval-ms
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-884
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-884
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.4-alpha
>            Reporter: Karthik Kambatla
>            Assignee: Karthik Kambatla
>              Labels: configuration
>         Attachments: yarn-884-1.patch
>
>
> As the AM can't outlive the NM on which it is running, it is a good idea to disallow
setting the am.liveness-monitor.expiry-interval-ms to a value higher than nm.liveness-monitor.expiry-interval-ms



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Mime
View raw message