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 9E2E1200C3F for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:37:49 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 9AC97160B86; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:49 +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 E3031160B83 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:37:48 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 20964 invoked by uid 500); 22 Mar 2017 06:37:47 -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 20953 invoked by uid 99); 22 Mar 2017 06:37:47 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 184B5C69ED for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.549 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H1Ii-d3-oQzJ for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id DFBFD60CE9 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id F1C07E0A31 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id A95D5254DA for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:43 +0000 (UTC) From: "Sunil G (JIRA)" To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-5892) Capacity Scheduler: Support user-specific minimum user limit percent MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:37:49 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-5892?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15935823#comment-15935823 ] Sunil G commented on YARN-5892: ------------------------------- Hi [~eepayne] Thanks for working on this patch. I have some doubts which are inline with Wangdas comments as well. 1. Do we need to store *localVersionOfUsersState* per user level. Currently we invalidate all user's limit if there is a semantic change (queue refresh, cluster resource change etc). Currently we invalidate per user level as per this patch, please correct me if I got that wrong. So if we invalidate per user level, how about other users in case of resource change/ config change etc. 2. I could see that *compureUserLimit* method internally consider the user's weight. Do we need to do this way? Is it possible to keep existing computation as it is, and then from external caller side, we can multiply with specific user's weight with computed user-limit. > Capacity Scheduler: Support user-specific minimum user limit percent > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-5892 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-5892 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: capacityscheduler > Reporter: Eric Payne > Assignee: Eric Payne > Attachments: Active users highlighted.jpg, YARN-5892.001.patch, YARN-5892.002.patch, YARN-5892.003.patch, YARN-5892.004.patch, YARN-5892.005.patch > > > Currently, in the capacity scheduler, the {{minimum-user-limit-percent}} property is per queue. A cluster admin should be able to set the minimum user limit percent on a per-user basis within the queue. > This functionality is needed so that when intra-queue preemption is enabled (YARN-4945 / YARN-2113), some users can be deemed as more important than other users, and resources from VIP users won't be as likely to be preempted. > For example, if the {{getstuffdone}} queue has a MULP of 25 percent, but user {{jane}} is a power user of queue {{getstuffdone}} and needs to be guaranteed 75 percent, the properties for {{getstuffdone}} and {{jane}} would look like this: > {code} > > yarn.scheduler.capacity.root.getstuffdone.minimum-user-limit-percent > 25 > > > yarn.scheduler.capacity.root.getstuffdone.jane.minimum-user-limit-percent > 75 > > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org