Inline. On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Chris Douglas <[email protected]> wrote:
> How visible are (1) reservations? They're an internal, implementation > detail exposed in metrics only to explain the edge cases they create. > Are users typically aware of them? > This is internal, and I don't think users are aware of the mechanics. However, they do see metrics for "reserved" resources. > > SLA reservations (2) are user-visible, and express the contract with > users/operators symmetrically. While (1) is a concept, renaming (2) > would require user-breaking code changes. > Yes, I don't think we should rename (2). > > Unless you're discussing the intersection- the effect of reservations > (1) on a reservation (2)- it's usually clear from context... I'd > rather avoid breaking anyone listening to the metrics in Hadoop-3. > I propose to add new metrics holdMB, holdCores for reservedMB, reseveredCores. Could we deprecate the older metrics in Hadoop-2 and Hadoop-3, and remove them in Hadoop-4? > > Maybe reservations (2) could have been named "sessions", but that > collided with applications that already used it for a similar concept. > -C > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Karthik Kambatla <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi folks > > > > We use the word "reservation" to mean both (1) reservations on nodes to > > avoid starvation of big container asks, and (2) the recent SLA work. This > > is confusing both to developers and end-users. > > > > I was wondering if people are open to calling the first one a "hold" and > > the second one a "reservation". We can change the terminology in the code > > and add new metrics for hold in branch-2 and remove the metrics for > > reserved* in Hadoop-3? > > > > Thoughts? >
