Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A05200BEE for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:30:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 1654D160B24; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:30:05 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 674C8160B10 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:30:04 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 31998 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2016 19:29:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 31958 invoked by uid 99); 16 Dec 2016 19:29:58 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:29:58 +0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arcas (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB8C2C03E1 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:29:58 +0000 (UTC) From: "Wangda Tan (JIRA)" To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-5889) Improve user-limit calculation in capacity scheduler MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:30:05 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-5889?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15755304#comment-15755304 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-5889: ---------------------------------- bq. For preemption calculation, one of the main problem could have been about the free resources I think so, but I think the *minimum* preemption threshold is we should not preempt res from user if used of the user < queue-capacity * MULP. The higher threshold is, the safer of the preemption. bq. I think in a busier and short-living app's cluster, we may recalculate more. I agree with [~eepayne], we should be able to make preemption / allocation UL calculation independent (or at least it's better to not allocation UL has dependency on preemption UL). [~sunilg] could you add some details here? bq. On this note, could I update a patch with approach mentioned above. Please go ahead when you get chance :). We should generally agree the approach, there are some debatable details, but starting prototype can help us understand the scope. Thoughts? > Improve user-limit calculation in capacity scheduler > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-5889 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-5889 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Bug > Components: capacity scheduler > Reporter: Sunil G > Assignee: Sunil G > Attachments: YARN-5889.v0.patch, YARN-5889.v1.patch, YARN-5889.v2.patch > > > Currently user-limit is computed during every heartbeat allocation cycle with a write lock. To improve performance, this tickets is focussing on moving user-limit calculation out of heartbeat allocation flow. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org