Github user srowen commented on the issue:
    Why is 0 executors a 'deadlock'? if there is no work to do, 0 executors is 
fine. If there is work to do, of course, at least 1 executor should not time 
out. Is that what you're claiming happens? that would be a bug, but that's not 
what this addresses though.
    I don't understand the claim that a small number of executors is somehow 
wrong. 0 is a fine number to have if you have no work.
    What do delays have to do with timing out idle executors? they're idle 
because no work is sent, not because they can't be reached.
    Yes, you may have a situation where the scheduler prefers to wait to 
schedule on executor A, even though B has slots (or no tasks at all) because of 
locality. That is by design. You are claiming this is an error because it will 
need it 'later' or something -- how would you even know that?
    If B times out because nobody sends it work, that is fine. You're saying 
let B wait a little longer: fine, increase the idle timeout. Or you're saying, 
wait for A for a shorter time: fine, decrease the locality wait. 
    Or: if B is getting no work, how can it matter whether it's removed?
    But this change just ignores the minimum, and I dont see how it's related 
to any of these ideas.

If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to