Yarn will deploy AM (Stram) on a node of its choice, therey rendering any
attribute within the app un-enforceable in terms of not deploying master on
a node.

Thks
Amol


On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Milind Barve <mili...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Additionally, this would apply to Stram as well i.e. the master should also
> not be deployed on these nodes. Not sure if anti-affinity goes beyond
> operators.
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Milind Barve <mili...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My previous mail explains it, but just forgot to add : -1 to cover this
> > under anti affinity.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Milind Barve <mili...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> While it is possible to extend anti-affinity to take care of this, I
> feel
> >> it will cause confusion from a user perspective. As a user, when I think
> >> about anti-affinity, what comes to mind right away is a relative
> relation
> >> between operators.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, the current ask is not that, but a relation at an
> >> application level w.r.t. a node. (Further, we might even think of
> extending
> >> this at an operator level - which would mean do not deploy an operator
> on a
> >> particular node)
> >>
> >> We would be better off clearly articulating and allowing users to
> >> configure it seperately as against using anti-affinity.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Bhupesh Chawda <
> bhup...@datatorrent.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Okay, I think that serves an alternate purpose of detecting any newly
> >>> gone
> >>> bad node and excluding it.
> >>>
> >>> +1 for covering the original scenario under anti-affinity.
> >>>
> >>> ~ Bhupesh
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Munagala Ramanath <r...@datatorrent.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > It only takes effect after failures -- no way to exclude from the
> >>> get-go.
> >>> >
> >>> > Ram
> >>> >
> >>> > On Dec 1, 2016 7:15 PM, "Bhupesh Chawda" <bhup...@datatorrent.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > As suggested by Sandesh, the parameter
> >>> > > MAX_CONSECUTIVE_CONTAINER_FAILURES_FOR_BLACKLIST seems to do
> exactly
> >>> > what
> >>> > > is needed.
> >>> > > Why would this not work?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ~ Bhupesh
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ~Milind bee at gee mail dot com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Milind bee at gee mail dot com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Milind bee at gee mail dot com
>

Reply via email to