[jira] [Comment Edited] (YARN-10283) Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and node labels are used
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17126100#comment-17126100
]
Eric Payne edited comment on YARN-10283 at 6/4/20, 7:44 PM:
-[~Jim_Brennan] it looks like the patch applies cleanly all the way back to
2.10.-
Sorry, this was placed in the wrong JIRA.
was (Author: eepayne):
-[~Jim_Brennan], it looks like the patch applies cleanly all the way back to
2.10.]
Sorry, this was placed in the wrong JIRA.
> Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and
> node labels are used
> -
>
> Key: YARN-10283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacity scheduler
>Reporter: Peter Bacsko
>Assignee: Peter Bacsko
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-10283-POC01.patch, YARN-10283-ReproTest.patch,
> YARN-10283-ReproTest2.patch
>
>
> Recently we've been investigating a scenario where applications submitted to
> a lower priority queue could not get scheduled because a higher priority
> queue in the same hierarchy could now satisfy the allocation request. Both
> queue belonged to the same partition.
> If we disabled node labels, the problem disappeared.
> The problem is that {{RegularContainerAllocator}} always allocated a
> container for the request, even if it should not have.
> *Example:*
> * Cluster total resources: 3 nodes, 15GB, 24 vcores (5GB / 8 vcore per node)
> * Partition "shared" was created with 2 nodes
> * "root.lowprio" (priority = 20) and "root.highprio" (priorty = 40) were
> added to the partition
> * Both queues have a limit of
> * Using DominantResourceCalculator
> Setup:
> Submit distributed shell application to highprio with switches
> "-num_containers 3 -container_vcores 4". The memory allocation is 512MB per
> container.
> Chain of events:
> 1. Queue is filled with contaners until it reaches usage vCores:5>
> 2. A node update event is pushed to CS from a node which is part of the
> partition
> 2. {{AbstractCSQueue.canAssignToQueue()}} returns true because it's smaller
> than the current limit resource
> 3. Then {{LeafQueue.assignContainers()}} runs successfully and gets an
> allocated container for
> 4. But we can't commit the resource request because we would have 9 vcores in
> total, violating the limit.
> The problem is that we always try to assign container for the same
> application in each heartbeat from "highprio". Applications in "lowprio"
> cannot make progress.
> *Problem:*
> {{RegularContainerAllocator.assignContainer()}} does not handle this case
> well. We only reject allocation if this condition is satisfied:
> {noformat}
> if (rmContainer == null && reservationsContinueLooking
> && node.getLabels().isEmpty()) {
> {noformat}
> But if we have node labels, we enter a different code path and succeed with
> the allocation if there's room for a container.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (YARN-10283) Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and node labels are used
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17126100#comment-17126100
]
Eric Payne edited comment on YARN-10283 at 6/4/20, 7:43 PM:
-[~Jim_Brennan], it looks like the patch applies cleanly all the way back to
2.10.]
Sorry, this was placed in the wrong JIRA.
was (Author: eepayne):
[~Jim_Brennan], it looks like the patch applies cleanly all the way back to
2.10.
> Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and
> node labels are used
> -
>
> Key: YARN-10283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacity scheduler
>Reporter: Peter Bacsko
>Assignee: Peter Bacsko
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-10283-POC01.patch, YARN-10283-ReproTest.patch,
> YARN-10283-ReproTest2.patch
>
>
> Recently we've been investigating a scenario where applications submitted to
> a lower priority queue could not get scheduled because a higher priority
> queue in the same hierarchy could now satisfy the allocation request. Both
> queue belonged to the same partition.
> If we disabled node labels, the problem disappeared.
> The problem is that {{RegularContainerAllocator}} always allocated a
> container for the request, even if it should not have.
> *Example:*
> * Cluster total resources: 3 nodes, 15GB, 24 vcores (5GB / 8 vcore per node)
> * Partition "shared" was created with 2 nodes
> * "root.lowprio" (priority = 20) and "root.highprio" (priorty = 40) were
> added to the partition
> * Both queues have a limit of
> * Using DominantResourceCalculator
> Setup:
> Submit distributed shell application to highprio with switches
> "-num_containers 3 -container_vcores 4". The memory allocation is 512MB per
> container.
> Chain of events:
> 1. Queue is filled with contaners until it reaches usage vCores:5>
> 2. A node update event is pushed to CS from a node which is part of the
> partition
> 2. {{AbstractCSQueue.canAssignToQueue()}} returns true because it's smaller
> than the current limit resource
> 3. Then {{LeafQueue.assignContainers()}} runs successfully and gets an
> allocated container for
> 4. But we can't commit the resource request because we would have 9 vcores in
> total, violating the limit.
> The problem is that we always try to assign container for the same
> application in each heartbeat from "highprio". Applications in "lowprio"
> cannot make progress.
> *Problem:*
> {{RegularContainerAllocator.assignContainer()}} does not handle this case
> well. We only reject allocation if this condition is satisfied:
> {noformat}
> if (rmContainer == null && reservationsContinueLooking
> && node.getLabels().isEmpty()) {
> {noformat}
> But if we have node labels, we enter a different code path and succeed with
> the allocation if there's room for a container.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (YARN-10283) Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and node labels are used
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17114298#comment-17114298
]
Peter Bacsko edited comment on YARN-10283 at 5/22/20, 6:06 PM:
---
I uploaded a new repro test patch. I was able to prove my theory.
If there are no node labels, the same allocation errors occur if
reservationsContinueLooking == false AND minimum-allocation-mb == 512.
However, if you increase minimum-allocation-mb to 1024 then we are saved becase
{{checkHeadroom()}} returns with false and no allocation occurs.
This can be reproduced with the new test case.
was (Author: pbacsko):
I uploaded a new repro test patch. I was able to prove my theory.
If there are no node labels, the same occurs if reservationsContinueLooking ==
false AND minimum-allocation-mb == 512.
However, if you increase minimum-allocation-mb to 1024 then we are saved becase
{{checkHeadroom()}} returns with false and no allocation occurs.
This can be reproduced with the new test case.
> Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and
> node labels are used
> -
>
> Key: YARN-10283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacity scheduler
>Reporter: Peter Bacsko
>Assignee: Peter Bacsko
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-10283-POC01.patch, YARN-10283-ReproTest.patch,
> YARN-10283-ReproTest2.patch
>
>
> Recently we've been investigating a scenario where applications submitted to
> a lower priority queue could not get scheduled because a higher priority
> queue in the same hierarchy could now satisfy the allocation request. Both
> queue belonged to the same partition.
> If we disabled node labels, the problem disappeared.
> The problem is that {{RegularContainerAllocator}} always allocated a
> container for the request, even if it should not have.
> *Example:*
> * Cluster total resources: 3 nodes, 15GB, 24 vcores (5GB / 8 vcore per node)
> * Partition "shared" was created with 2 nodes
> * "root.lowprio" (priority = 20) and "root.highprio" (priorty = 40) were
> added to the partition
> * Both queues have a limit of
> * Using DominantResourceCalculator
> Setup:
> Submit distributed shell application to highprio with switches
> "-num_containers 3 -container_vcores 4". The memory allocation is 512MB per
> container.
> Chain of events:
> 1. Queue is filled with contaners until it reaches usage vCores:5>
> 2. A node update event is pushed to CS from a node which is part of the
> partition
> 2. {{AbstractCSQueue.canAssignToQueue()}} returns true because it's smaller
> than the current limit resource
> 3. Then {{LeafQueue.assignContainers()}} runs successfully and gets an
> allocated container for
> 4. But we can't commit the resource request because we would have 9 vcores in
> total, violating the limit.
> The problem is that we always try to assign container for the same
> application in each heartbeat from "highprio". Applications in "lowprio"
> cannot make progress.
> *Problem:*
> {{RegularContainerAllocator.assignContainer()}} does not handle this case
> well. We only reject allocation if this condition is satisfied:
> {noformat}
> if (rmContainer == null && reservationsContinueLooking
> && node.getLabels().isEmpty()) {
> {noformat}
> But if we have node labels, we enter a different code path and succeed with
> the allocation if there's room for a container.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (YARN-10283) Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and node labels are used
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17113342#comment-17113342
]
Tarun Parimi edited comment on YARN-10283 at 5/21/20, 4:31 PM:
---
Thanks [~pbacsko] for the repro test patch. The POC patch changes the behavior
to include partitions while doing {{reservationsContinueLooking}} in
RegularContainerAllocator.java . Similar conditions to check for nodelabels is
present in several places such as AbstractCSQueue.java since
{{reservationsContinueLooking}} was implemented only for non node label
scenario. Ideally we will have to consider fixing YARN-9903 in this scenario.
was (Author: tarunparimi):
Thanks for the repro test patch. The POC patch changes the behavior to include
partitions while doing {{reservationsContinueLooking}} in
RegularContainerAllocator.java . Similar conditions to check for nodelabels is
present in several places such as AbstractCSQueue.java since
{{reservationsContinueLooking}} was implemented only for non node label
scenario. Ideally we will have to consider fixing YARN-9903 in this scenario.
> Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and
> node labels are used
> -
>
> Key: YARN-10283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacity scheduler
>Reporter: Peter Bacsko
>Assignee: Peter Bacsko
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-10283-POC01.patch, YARN-10283-ReproTest.patch
>
>
> Recently we've been investigating a scenario where applications submitted to
> a lower priority queue could not get scheduled because a higher priority
> queue in the same hierarchy could now satisfy the allocation request. Both
> queue belonged to the same partition.
> If we disabled node labels, the problem disappeared.
> The problem is that {{RegularContainerAllocator}} always allocated a
> container for the request, even if it should not have.
> *Example:*
> * Cluster total resources: 3 nodes, 15GB, 24 vcores (5GB / 8 vcore per node)
> * Partition "shared" was created with 2 nodes
> * "root.lowprio" (priority = 20) and "root.highprio" (priorty = 40) were
> added to the partition
> * Both queues have a limit of
> * Using DominantResourceCalculator
> Setup:
> Submit distributed shell application to highprio with switches
> "-num_containers 3 -container_vcores 4". The memory allocation is 512MB per
> container.
> Chain of events:
> 1. Queue is filled with contaners until it reaches usage vCores:5>
> 2. A node update event is pushed to CS from a node which is part of the
> partition
> 2. {{AbstractCSQueue.canAssignToQueue()}} returns true because it's smaller
> than the current limit resource
> 3. Then {{LeafQueue.assignContainers()}} runs successfully and gets an
> allocated container for
> 4. But we can't commit the resource request because we would have 9 vcores in
> total, violating the limit.
> The problem is that we always try to assign container for the same
> application in each heartbeat from "highprio". Applications in "lowprio"
> cannot make progress.
> *Problem:*
> {{RegularContainerAllocator.assignContainer()}} does not handle this case
> well. We only reject allocation if this condition is satisfied:
> {noformat}
> if (rmContainer == null && reservationsContinueLooking
> && node.getLabels().isEmpty()) {
> {noformat}
> But if we have node labels, we enter a different code path and succeed with
> the allocation if there's room for a container.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (YARN-10283) Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and node labels are used
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17113063#comment-17113063
]
Prabhu Joseph edited comment on YARN-10283 at 5/21/20, 10:55 AM:
-
[~pbacsko] Can you write a testcase which reproduces the issue, so that it will
be easier to understand the issue and validate the fix.
was (Author: prabhu joseph):
[~pbacsko] Can you write a testcase which reproduces the issue, so that it will
be easier to understand the issue.
> Capacity Scheduler: starvation occurs if a higher priority queue is full and
> node labels are used
> -
>
> Key: YARN-10283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10283
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: capacity scheduler
>Reporter: Peter Bacsko
>Assignee: Peter Bacsko
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-10283-POC01.patch
>
>
> Recently we've been investigating a scenario where applications submitted to
> a lower priority queue could not get scheduled because a higher priority
> queue in the same hierarchy could now satisfy the allocation request. Both
> queue belonged to the same partition.
> If we disabled node labels, the problem disappeared.
> The problem is that {{RegularContainerAllocator}} always allocated a
> container for the request, even if it should not have.
> *Example:*
> * Cluster total resources: 3 nodes, 15GB, 24 vcores
> * Partition "shared" was created with 2 nodes
> * "root.lowprio" (priority = 20) and "root.highprio" (priorty = 40) were
> added to the partition
> * Both queues have a limit of
> * Using DominantResourceCalculator
> Setup:
> Submit distributed shell application to highprio with switches
> "-num_containers 3 -container_vcores 4". The memory allocation is 512MB per
> container.
> Chain of events:
> 1. Queue is filled with contaners until it reaches usage vCores:5>
> 2. A node update event is pushed to CS from a node which is part of the
> partition
> 2. {{AbstractCSQueue.canAssignToQueue()}} returns true because it's smaller
> than the current limit resource
> 3. Then {{LeafQueue.assignContainers()}} runs successfully and gets an
> allocated container for
> 4. But we can't commit the resource request because we would have 9 vcores in
> total, violating the limit.
> The problem is that we always try to assign container for the same
> application in each heartbeat from "highprio". Applications in "lowprio"
> cannot make progress.
> *Problem:*
> {{RegularContainerAllocator.assignContainer()}} does not handle this case
> well. We only reject allocation if this condition is satisfied:
> {noformat}
> if (rmContainer == null && reservationsContinueLooking
> && node.getLabels().isEmpty()) {
> {noformat}
> But if we have node labels, we enter a different code path and succeed with
> the allocation if there's room for a container.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
