[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-4671?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Siddharth Seth updated MAPREDUCE-4671:
--------------------------------------
Target Version/s: 2.0.3-alpha
Affects Version/s: 0.23.3
2.0.0-alpha
Status: Open (was: Patch Available)
bq. // ??? shoudl this assert that the new value >= 0 ???
That does need to be checked before the decrement. There's a comment further up
in the code which mentions a decrement coming in after this value has gone to
0. See {{containerFailedOnHost}}.
Looking at this and YARN-103 again, we're not really gaining much by keeping
entries in the main request table - (remoteRequestsTable). To avoid duplicate
requests, does it make sense to change ResourceRequest to ignore containerCount
when computing {{equals}} and {{hashCode}}, or defining a local structure with
the required implementation.
> AM does not tell the RM about container requests that are no longer needed
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAPREDUCE-4671
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-4671
> Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0-alpha, 0.23.3
> Reporter: Bikas Saha
> Assignee: Bikas Saha
> Attachments: MAPREDUCE-4671.1.patch, MAPREDUCE-4671.2.patch
>
>
> Say the AM wanted a container at hosts h1, h2, h3. After getting a container
> at h1 it should tell RM that it no longer needs containers at h2, h3.
> Otherwise on the RM h2, h3 remain valid allocation locations.
> The AM RMContainerAllocator does remove these resource requests internally.
> When the resource request container count drops to 0 then it drops the
> resource request from its tables but forgets to send the 0 sized request to
> the RM.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
