hadoop-yarn-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mayank Bansal (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (YARN-2933) Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without labels temporarily
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:23:35 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14279056#comment-14279056

Mayank Bansal commented on YARN-2933:

Thanks [~jianhe] and [~wangda] for the review

bq. looks good overall, we should use priority.AMCONTAINER here ?

It was Confusing by name , I changed the names and updated accordingly.

bq. it's better to use enum type instead of int in mockContainer, which can avoid call getValue()
from enum.
Priority is been override in multiple tests differently so didn't want to change the signature
of the functions, Moreover its same.

Uploading the updated patch


> Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without labels temporarily
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-2933
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Mayank Bansal
>         Attachments: YARN-2933-1.patch, YARN-2933-2.patch, YARN-2933-3.patch, YARN-2933-4.patch,
YARN-2933-5.patch, YARN-2933-6.patch, YARN-2933-7.patch, YARN-2933-8.patch
> Currently, we have capacity enforcement on each queue for each label in CapacityScheduler,
but we don't have preemption policy to support that. YARN-2498 is targeting to support preemption
respect node labels, but we have some gaps in code base, like queues/FiCaScheduler should
be able to get usedResource/pendingResource, etc. by label. These items potentially need to
refactor CS which we need spend some time carefully think about.
> For now, what immediately we can do is allow calculate ideal_allocation and preempt containers
only for resources on nodes without labels, to avoid regression like: A cluster has some nodes
with labels and some not, assume queueA isn't satisfied for resource without label, but for
now, preemption policy may preempt resource from nodes with labels for queueA, that is not
> Again, it is just a short-term enhancement, YARN-2498 will consider preemption respecting
node-labels for Capacity Scheduler which is our final target. 

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message