Thanks to everyone who pushed on this release, really great to see a
release coming off trunk.
+1 (binding).
Deployed the RC on a federated YARN cluster consisting of 8 sub-clusters on
CentOs 7.4 running Java 1.8.0_144.
Hit YARN-7652[1] which is not a blocker as I was able to run multiple jobs
+1.
Skimmed through the design doc and uber patch and seems to be reasonable.
This is a welcome addition especially w.r.t. cloud deployments so thanks to
everyone who worked on this.
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Rohith Sharma K S wrote:
> +1
>
> On Nov 30, 2017
Allen, can we bump up the maven surefire heap size to max (if it already is
not) for the branch-2 nightly build and see if it helps?
Thanks,
Subru
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Allen Wittenauer
wrote:
>
> > On Oct 24, 2017, at 4:10 PM, Andrew Wang
Hi Allen,
I had set up the build (or intended to) in anticipation 2.9 release. Thanks
for fixing the configuration!
We did face HDFS tests timeouts in branch-2 when run together but
individually the tests pass:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12620
Folks in HDFS, can you please take
I think we should get in YARN-7170 before we merge the UI to branch-2
especially since it looks like it is ready for commit?
Thanks,
Subru
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Wangda Tan wrote:
> Eric, thanks for updating your vote! I just committed YARN-7338
>
> Vrushali:
>
>
We have pushed out the release to 10th November 2017:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Roadmap
The *final *feature freeze date is now 20th October 2017:
- Merge vote is ongoing for API based (Capacity) Scheduler configuration
(YARN-5734) and HDFS Router based federation
Good to see this merged. I have initiated a separate thread with a smaller
set of stakeholders to discuss inclusion in 2.9. We'll report back to the
2.9 release thread as soon as we reach consensus.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Ravi Prakash wrote:
> +1 to maintaining
Andrew,
First up thanks for tirelessly pushing on 3.0 release.
I am confused about your comment on creating 2 branches as my understanding
of Jason's (and Vinod's) comments are that we defer creating branch-3?
IMHO, we should consider creating branch-3 (necessary but not sufficient)
only when
+1 (binding).
I have been following the effort and had few design discussions around the
team especially about how it integrates with Federation. Overall I feel
it's a welcome improvement to YARN.
What are the timelines you are looking for getting this into branch-2?
Thanks,
Subru
On Fri, Aug
+1 on the proposal as:
1) We definitely need first class support for long running services on YARN.
2) We need to surface the support we are building in an easy to consume
format to app developers as YARN APIs IMHO is too low-level for direct
end-developer consumption.
3) Slider is the obvious
+0 for same reasons as Karthik/Akira. I skimmed through the API patches as
I was trying to make sense of integration with Federation (YARN-2915) and
they seemed reasonable.
Generally excited to see this in YARN.
Also the contributors did a good job of keeping yarn-dev@ in the loop with
regular
Vinod,
Thanks for initiating the 2.8 release thread. We are in late review stages
for YARN-4420 (Add REST API for listing reservations) and YARN-2575 (Adding
ACLs for reservation system), hoping to get them by next week. Any chance
you can put off cutting 2.8 by a week as we are planning to
Hi Vinod,
Thanks for driving this. Can you add YARN-2573 which includes the work done
to integrate ReservationSystem with the RM failover mechanism to your list.
This can be reviewed and committed (branch-2) also about a month back.
Cheers,
Subru
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Vinod Kumar
. Thanks!
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
vino...@hortonworks.com wrote:
+1
Thanks
+Vinod
On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Subramaniam V K subru...@gmail.commailto:
subru...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Vinod,
Thanks for organizing the BoF meetup.
We have put up
Hi Vinod,
Thanks for organizing the BoF meetup.
We have put up an initial proposal @YARN-2915
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2915 on Federating YARN to
make it elastically scalable. This is critical for us to scale out YARN to
match the cluster sizes at Microsoft which are already at
Karthik, thanks for starting the thread.
Here's my $0.02 based on the experience of working on a feature branch
while adding reservations (YARN-1051).
Overall a +1 for the approach.
The couple of pain points we faced were:
1) Merge cost with trunk
2) Lack of CI in the feature branch
The
+1 (non-binding)
- Deployed single node cluster
- Verified reservation system works (YARN-1051) by making reservations and
submitting sample MR jobs against the reservations
- Verified move apps between capacity scheduler queues (YARN-2378)
Thanks,
Subru
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Charles
+1 for end of next week.
We have got all the patches for YARN-1051 committed to the branch. We are
currently fixing test-patch plan to call a merge vote soon. Hopefully it
will go through by end of next week.
Thanks,
Subru
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com
18 matches
Mail list logo