[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17280?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17203019#comment-17203019
]
Takanobu Asanuma commented on HADOOP-17280:
-------------------------------------------
Thanks for uploading the patch, [~LiJinglun]. Some comments for
[^HADOOP-17280.004.patch]:
DecayRpcScheduler:
* To adjust to other places, I like to use {{isServiceUser()}} directly in the
if-condition.
TestDecayRpcScheduler:
* Could you specify the parameter of the decay-scheduler.thresholds?
* Please adjust the order of assertEquals at L452-L455 to other places.
* Since the lowest priority level is 3 in the test, the assertNotEquals always
passes, doesn't it?
{code:java}
final int level = 4;
...
assertNotEquals(level, scheduler.getPriorityLevel(mockCall("user1")));
{code}
Could you add documents to FairCallQueue.md and core-default.xml?
> Service-user cost shouldn't be accumulated to totalDecayedCallCost and
> totalRawCallCost.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-17280
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17280
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jinglun
> Assignee: Jinglun
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HADOOP-17280.001.patch, HADOOP-17280.002.patch,
> HADOOP-17280.003.patch, HADOOP-17280.004.patch
>
>
> HADOOP-17165 has introduced a very useful feature: service-user. After this
> feature I think we shouldn't add the service-user's cost into
> totalDecayedCallCost and totalRawCallCost anymore. Because it may give all
> the identities the priority 0(Supposing we have a big service-user).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
