Mailing-List: contact yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 23:06:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Nathan Roberts (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12779920.1425595840000.43193.1425942399186@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12779920.1425595840000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12779920.1425595840000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12779920.1425595840312@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-3298) User-limit should be enforced in
 CapacityScheduler
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14353833#comment-14353833 ] 

Nathan Roberts commented on YARN-3298:
--------------------------------------

[~leftnoteasy], won't that be extremely close to what it is today? If so, then does it really solve the jitter issue you originally cited?

Just to make sure I'm in-sync with your proposed direction, this is the code you're thinking about modifying, correct? 
{code}
    // Note: We aren't considering the current request since there is a fixed
    // overhead of the AM, but it's a > check, not a >= check, so...
    if (Resources
        .greaterThan(resourceCalculator, clusterResource,
            user.getConsumedResourceByLabel(label),
            limit)) {
{code}

> User-limit should be enforced in CapacityScheduler
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-3298
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3298
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: capacityscheduler, yarn
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Wangda Tan
>
> User-limit is not treat as a hard-limit for now, it will not consider required-resource (resource of being-allocated resource request). And also, when user's used resource equals to user-limit, it will still continue. This will generate jitter issues when we have YARN-2069 (preemption policy kills a container under an user, and scheduler allocate a container under the same user soon after).
> The expected behavior should be as same as queue's capacity:
> Only when user.usage + required <= user-limit (1), queue will continue to allocate container.
> (1), user-limit mentioned here is determined by following computing
> {code}
> current-capacity = queue.used + now-required (when queue.used > queue.capacity)
>                    queue.capacity (when queue.used < queue.capacity)
> user-limit = min(max(current-capacity / #active-users, current-capacity * user-limit / 100), queue-capacity * user-limit-factor)
> {code}


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)