hadoop-yarn-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig Welch (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (YARN-3257) FairScheduler: MaxAm may be set too low preventing apps from starting
Date Fri, 01 May 2015 21:02:07 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14523935#comment-14523935

Craig Welch commented on YARN-3257:

The implementation looks correct to me functionally, but I wonder if this should be something
deferred to the policy?  I realize on a practical level this might mean some duplicate code,
but I wonder if, from a policy/contract perspective, it properly should be up to the policy
to support or not support this "exception to the rule" logic?  This might mean expanding the
signature on the policy side to include the number of currently running apps as I don't know
that the policy is otherwise aware of that.  I don't feel strongly that this needs to be the
approach, I just wanted to throw it out there for consideration.

> FairScheduler: MaxAm may be set too low preventing apps from starting
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-3257
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3257
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: fairscheduler
>            Reporter: Anubhav Dhoot
>            Assignee: Anubhav Dhoot
>         Attachments: YARN-3257.001.patch
> In YARN-2637 CapacityScheduler#LeafQueue does not enforce max am share if the limit prevents
the first application from starting. This would be good to add to FSLeafQueue as well

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message