Yes, I know there is such an API, what I don't understand is what I should
pass in the filtering API you mentioned, say we query YARN for every 5
tickets

0: Query and get App A is running

4: App A is done

5: Query...so what I should fill as filtering parameters at 5 get capture
the changes of App A's state?

If you look at Meisam's PR, they can only filter based on appType
https://github.com/apache/incubator-livy/pull/36/files#diff-a3f879755cfe10a678cc08ddbe60a4d3R75

I guess it's due to the same reason

Best,

Nan


On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Marcelo Vanzin <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Nan Zhu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Looks like non-REST API also contains this https://hadoop.apache.
> > org/docs/r2.7.0/api/src-html/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/client/
> > api/YarnClient.html#line.225
> >
> > my concern which was skipped in your last email (again) is that, how many
> > app states we want to fetch through this API. What I can see is we cannot
> > filter applications since application state can change between two polls,
> > any thoughts?
>
> I didn't skip it. I'm intentionally keeping the discussion high level
> because there's no code here to compare. It's purely a "multiple
> requests for single app state" vs. "single request for multiple
> applications' statuses" discussion.
>
> The bulk API I suggested you to investigate should be able to support
> enough filtering so that Livy only gets the information it needs
> (maybe with a little extra noise). It should't get every single YARN
> application ever run, for example.
>
> This method is more what I was thinking of:
>
> 287  public abstract List<ApplicationReport> getApplications(
> 288      Set<String> applicationTypes,
> 289      EnumSet<YarnApplicationState> applicationStates) throws
> YarnException,
> 290      IOException;
>
> Lets you query apps with a given type and multiple states that you're
> interested in. It's not optimal (doesn't let you filter by tags, for
> example), but it's better than getting all apps. Maybe that's now
> enough either, but you're proposing the changes, so please explain why
> that is not enough instead of just throwing the question back at me.
>
> --
> Marcelo
>

Reply via email to