hadoop-yarn-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kuhu Shukla (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (YARN-4311) Removing nodes from include and exclude lists will not remove them from decommissioned nodes list
Date Sun, 10 Apr 2016 06:30:25 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4311?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

Kuhu Shukla updated YARN-4311:
    Attachment: YARN-4311-branch-2.7.004.patch

TestResourceTrackerService#testNodeRemoval passes locally but is flaky since the wait period
was set to the minimum wait time which may get exceeded during removal. I have added {{waitForNodeRemoval}}
that waits for the node to get removed before asserting. This fix should be added to the test
in trunk although it was not seen in the precommits. I will do so after some review comments
on this.

> Removing nodes from include and exclude lists will not remove them from decommissioned
nodes list
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-4311
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4311
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.6.1
>            Reporter: Kuhu Shukla
>            Assignee: Kuhu Shukla
>             Fix For: 2.8.0
>         Attachments: YARN-4311-branch-2.7.001.patch, YARN-4311-branch-2.7.002.patch,
YARN-4311-branch-2.7.003.patch, YARN-4311-branch-2.7.004.patch, YARN-4311-v1.patch, YARN-4311-v10.patch,
YARN-4311-v11.patch, YARN-4311-v11.patch, YARN-4311-v12.patch, YARN-4311-v13.patch, YARN-4311-v13.patch,
YARN-4311-v14.patch, YARN-4311-v2.patch, YARN-4311-v3.patch, YARN-4311-v4.patch, YARN-4311-v5.patch,
YARN-4311-v6.patch, YARN-4311-v7.patch, YARN-4311-v8.patch, YARN-4311-v9.patch
> In order to fully forget about a node, removing the node from include and exclude list
is not sufficient. The RM lists it under Decomm-ed nodes. The tricky part that [~jlowe] pointed
out was the case when include lists are not used, in that case we don't want the nodes to
fall off if they are not active.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message