[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-4951?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13561449#comment-13561449
]
Sandy Ryza commented on MAPREDUCE-4951:
---------------------------------------
It doesn't seem to me that either approach would conflict with this patch at
the moment. While this code might get rewritten in the future, under the
current preemption mechanism, when MR is explicitly told that a container was
preempted, it should not count it as failed. Does anybody disagree?
> Container preemption interpreted as task failure
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAPREDUCE-4951
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-4951
> Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: applicationmaster, mr-am, mrv2
> Affects Versions: 2.0.2-alpha
> Reporter: Sandy Ryza
> Assignee: Sandy Ryza
> Attachments: MAPREDUCE-4951-1.patch, MAPREDUCE-4951-2.patch,
> MAPREDUCE-4951.patch
>
>
> When YARN reports a completed container to the MR AM, it always interprets it
> as a failure. This can lead to a job failing because too many of its tasks
> failed, when in fact they only failed because the scheduler preempted them.
> MR needs to recognize the special exit code value of -100 and interpret it as
> a container being killed instead of a container failure.
--
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
