There is some issue in that command usage (i tried giving the params in the
the order also)

sudo -u yarn /usr/hdp/current/slider-client/bin/./slider list storm1
--containers

2015-04-28 00:42:01,017 [main] ERROR main.ServiceLauncher -
com.beust.jcommander.ParameterException: Unknown option: --containers in
list storm1 --containers

2015-04-28 00:42:01,021 [main] INFO  util.ExitUtil - Exiting with status 40

Anyway, I issued STOP command and checked in the RM UI, the application is
stopped and all the 5 containers are released.. It shows as ZERO containers
is running.

But, when I login to that machine, I could see storm components are still
running there (ps -ef | grep storm). The processes are up. Even Storm UI is
still accessible.



On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Gour Saha <[email protected]> wrote:

> Calling ³slider stop² before ³slider destroy² is the right order.
>
> On calling stop, your storm cluster should be completely stopped
> (including Slider AM and all storm components).
>
> Can you run this command after stop and send the output (don¹t run destroy
> yet)?
>
> slider list <app-instance-name> --containers
>
> Also, at this point you should check the RM UI and it should show that the
> yarn app is in stopped state.
>
> -Gour
>
> On 4/27/15, 11:52 AM, "Chackravarthy Esakkimuthu" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I started the storm on yarn (slider create)
> >Then wanted to test whether destroying the storm works or not.
> >So I tried in the following order :
> >
> >1) slider stop <app-instance-name>
> >-- in this case, sliderAM alone stopped, and all the other storm daemons
> >like Nimbus, supervisor, log_viewer,  drpc, UI_Server was running. (along
> >with slider agents)
> >
> >Is this just an intermediate state before issuing destroy command?
> >
> >2) slider destroy <app-instance-name>
> >-- in this case, only nimbus and supervisor got killed. The other storm
> >daemons (log_viewer,  drpc, UI_Server) still running. And slider agents
> >too
> >still running in all the 4 containers.
> >
> >This issue I face in 0.60 release. Then I tried with 0.71 release. But
> >still same behaviour exists.
> >
> >Am I using the command in wrong way (or some other order) ? or issue
> >exists.
> >
> >Thanks in advance!
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Chackra
>
>

Reply via email to