With 6 binding +1s and no -1s, this vote passes. I'm merging YARN-1197 into trunk now. I will merge it to branch-2 after we get stable trunk build.
Thanks everyone for voting! Regards, Wangda On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Wangda Tan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Karthik, > > Let me elaborate more to make you feel better of this change, don't be > scared by the size of the patch :) > > Common RM/Scheduler part: > - AbstractYarnScheduler new logic only. > - AppSchedulingInfo new logic only. > - RMContainer / RMNode state machine, new logic only > - SchedulerApplicationAttempt / Allocation, refactoring to existing > reservation logic so increase request reservation can reuse it, and > refactored to simply updating container token / pull container part so > increase/decrease/new-allocation can reuse same code. > > FairScheduler: > - Small change since we updated how to pull container updated token. I > believe it will be a straightforward change for you if you take a closer > look at it. > > CapacityScheduler: > - Most changes are separate logic or small refactorings, most complex > allocation logic stays within IncreaseContainerAllocator.java. > > Please let me know where you want to get more details of implementations. > > I strongly suggest you to take a glance at the diff, we have already > worked on the merge for the past one week, and we've paid a lot of extra > time to keep YARN-1197 sync with trunk in the past several months. After > this merge finished, a couple of weeks needed to finish end-to-end test and > some other extra tests, it won't affect our upcoming branch-2 release. > > I would not prefer to merge to trunk only, all people working on RM side > will be affected, we're very carefully avoid such divergence of RM in > trunk/branch-2. Since nobody wants to create two different patches for > every RM changes. And also, after this finished, other efforts can happen > in parallel such as YARN-4091. > > Let me know if you have any other questions/concerns. > > Thanks, > Wangda > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Karthik Kambatla <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I am sorry, but merging a potentially disruptive change to branch-2 >> without >> end-to-end tests seems too disruptive to me. >> >> I do agree with you on the potential inconvenience of having to post >> different patches for trunk and branch-2, but I would rather have that >> inconvenience than the risk of merging something that hasn't been >> thoroughly tested. >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Wangda Tan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Karthik, >> > >> > Thanks for comments! However, I think only merge to trunk may not work, >> > this patch involves thousands lines of code changes in scheduler side, >> only >> > putting that to trunk could lead to trunk/branch-2 totally incompatible >> for >> > resource manager. I think most of the code changes are new to scheduler >> > instead of modifying existed logic, they're not very tricky to me. And >> when >> > 2.8 will be released is not planned yet, at least we have a couple of >> > months to make sure this feature becomes usable and not cause existing >> > behavior regressions. >> > >> > Sounds good to you? >> > >> > Wangda >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > +1 on merging to trunk. It would be nice to have some amount of >> testing >> > > done before the merge, but I understand how merging to trunk would >> likely >> > > speed up the testing efforts. >> > > >> > > Let us not merge into branch-2 until after we have done a fair bit of >> > > testing, and are comfortable including it in a release. While the code >> > > mostly appears to not mess with existing scheduling logic, I am >> concerned >> > > about regressions to existing scheduling behavior. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Karthik Kambatla <[email protected] >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > By the way, for the purposes of merge vote, I believe a committer's >> > vote >> > > > is binding. So, Wangda and Zhihai's votes should be binding. :) >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Zhihai Xu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> +1 (non-binding) >> > > >> >> > > >> thanks >> > > >> Zhihai Xu >> > > >> >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Xuan Gong <[email protected] >> > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > +1 Binding >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Xuan Gong >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Junping Du <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > +1. (Binding). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Junping >> > > >> > > ________________________________________ >> > > >> > > From: Wangda Tan <[email protected]> >> > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:19 AM >> > > >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > >> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merge YARN-1197 container resize into trunk >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > +1 (non-binding), >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks Jian starting this thread. This can minimize effort of >> > works >> > > >> > across branches. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > To clarify, this feature is end-to-end code completed, we have >> > API, >> > > >> > rm/nm implementations patches committed, but we haven't tested it >> > > >> > end-to-end. Filed YARN-4175 to create an example program to test >> it >> > > >> > end-to-end. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > Wangda >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Jian He <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> Hi All, >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks Meng Ding and Wangda Tan for all the hard work ! >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> I would like to call a vote to merge YARN-1197 container >> resize >> > > into >> > > >> > trunk. >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> Key idea: >> > > >> > >> This feature adds the ability for AM to change container >> resource >> > > >> size >> > > >> > at runtime. >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> Details: >> > > >> > >> - This feature is tracked at >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1197 >> > > >> > >> - It’s currently developed at a separate branch: >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/commits/YARN-1197 >> > > >> > >> - A uber patch( >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4157) >> > > >> > generated from YARN-1197 to run against trunk shows all unit >> tests >> > > have >> > > >> > passed. >> > > >> > >> - This feature now can work end-to-end. >> > > >> > >> - All the unresolved jiras under YARN-1197 will be the next >> > step. >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks, >> > > >> > >> Wangda Tan & Meng Ding & Jian He >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
