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 751DD200B27 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:58:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 74164160A24; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:58:18 +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 BF10E160A68 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:58:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 50466 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2016 20:58:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@reef.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@reef.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@reef.apache.org Received: (qmail 50452 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jun 2016 20:58:16 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:58:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2B2FCC0DF4 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:58:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=weimo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx2-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7g1N61xrXcb for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com (mail-pf0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) by mx2-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 6C40C5F3FC for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:58:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f173.google.com with SMTP id t190so21024965pfb.3 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=weimo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=deMPShvK3zlg2iBKsMXPaYK8BT+WjrAnCisjrNl2cy0=; b=UgiZrwkFDk7xvUbrcj7WPC7iaGkIsU3kUQhQct+GhxntmwA70Io7EQF9s4CKCWMdDY c7pqTr4vGREGWzhJ3eQNMuJJGn+DCAFoaliYeWTLpvv8OGeugvRxLVpL1eXSYoFie8lk tFJalE2DbN8+uwEh96l/3jGPX/rVhNxxe+luGA7NlKSmV8H4afkIMhyVqFs+20QS1q4X Fj5HFQbDhKy1f3GOC5K3cLm/lf1wo2M2+72RyrvhcbYJuS00WUQDcthOdlYDqS0BwILs jBDHVBCCyyksFhTmAwuLEr2+u/R+3ULmP6I7+dR7c1LqMjpWGGHuePWCo7io8A0SMTzs sbQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=deMPShvK3zlg2iBKsMXPaYK8BT+WjrAnCisjrNl2cy0=; b=UpKOuCG/eieJ2hyxMEMV7PD5a+OAsqIQd0BRFvrs8sYe/s2HkJGLv9NcMDppoVOUJ2 uJ5tN8PXvXegNd8IBhdUC54i03LN5TsRxZZuIhRlcQGAdSAXzFonU7NIEFf9PHkT6SQj ZYjWluk+LQNYfbIoZgGrwQlX+BjxHhHDRA5fxDsI082VPNoaR0cU2ex0f9Y9fmABn9Aw VyvuUnvIRcc9sQaWhS0dRMoej6BD/mFvCD8hHaRKLZt3ut7iUcv2fmgdFL7M+XRGkLtx cjJeauF39K/CDIse1q8zuxzMdYVK1wnzSZvHB8WbAS89JAsQUw3KlfeYzKn+c8ykqtrG WCXg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIS57+um5ioMNYb2y05X44Q3BG5UzIe7cuv942Br3mPEVfvpx+AOyg6vJpIiv4Vqw== X-Received: by 10.98.82.68 with SMTP id g65mr36615893pfb.157.1466629092902; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (50-46-112-150.evrt.wa.frontiernet.net. [50.46.112.150]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 186sm1820612pfg.39.2016.06.22.13.58.12 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Question about failure scenarios To: dev@reef.apache.org References: From: Markus Weimer Message-ID: <5f4ae285-bbbc-6050-9931-93185fd68a60@weimo.de> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:58:17 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:58:18 -0000 On 2016-06-22 13:31, Tobin Baker wrote: > My experience on the Java side has been that if insufficient > resources are available to allocate all requested Evaluators, the RM > will just silently keep retrying forever, with no exceptions thrown > by YARN or REEF. That is correct. YARN does not, presently, give "no" as an answer to a unsatisfiable resource request. The only way I know to guard against it is to set a timer and to give up if the needed containers can't be acquired within the timeout. Markus