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 481DAC786 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 19:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 73266 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jan 2015 19:44:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-yarn-issues-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 73212 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jan 2015 19:44:35 -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 73200 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jan 2015 19:44:35 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:44:35 +0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 19:44:35 +0000 (UTC) From: "Hadoop QA (JIRA)" To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-2933) Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without labels temporarily 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-2933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14268097#comment-14268097 ] Hadoop QA commented on YARN-2933: --------------------------------- {color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12690579/YARN-2933-5.patch against trunk revision 788ee35. {color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color:green}+1 tests included{color}. The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test files. {color:green}+1 javac{color}. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac compiler warnings. {color:green}+1 javadoc{color}. There were no new javadoc warning messages. {color:green}+1 eclipse:eclipse{color}. The patch built with eclipse:eclipse. {color:red}-1 findbugs{color}. The patch appears to introduce 1 new Findbugs (version 2.0.3) warnings. {color:green}+1 release audit{color}. The applied patch does not increase the total number of release audit warnings. {color:green}+1 core tests{color}. The patch passed unit tests in hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager. Test results: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/6271//testReport/ Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/6271//artifact/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager.html Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/6271//console This message is automatically generated. > 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 > > > 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 correct. > 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 (v6.3.4#6332)