Also I think this can help us close the gap (and surpass) Kubernetes for complex services (at least for resource management)... It would be awesome to have a compatibility layer so folks can run Kubernetes natives apps on a yarn cluster.
On Jan 26, 2018 1:32 AM, "Carlo Aldo Curino" <carlo.cur...@gmail.com> wrote: +1. I didn't runs tests, but I like the design, and speaking with ops teams that operate large clusters I hear this is a feature they think is going to help a lot, so I am very supportive of this effort. On Jan 25, 2018 7:08 PM, "Konstantinos Karanasos" <kkarana...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for starting the thread Arun, +1 from me too. > > Konstantinos > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 18:54 Weiwei Yang <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> +1, thanks for getting to this milestone Arun. >> I’ve done some basic validations on a 4 nodes cluster, with some general >> affinity/anti-affinty/cardinality constraints, it worked. I’ve also >> reviewed the doc, it’s in good shape and very illustrative. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Weiwei >> >> On 26 Jan 2018, 10:44 AM +0800, Sunil G <sun...@apache.org>, wrote: >> +1. >> >> Thanks Arun. >> >> I did manual testing for check affinity and anti-affinity features with >> placement allocator. Also checked SLS to see any performance regression, >> and there are not much difference as Arun mentioned. >> >> Thanks all the folks for working on this. Kudos! >> >> - Sunil >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 5:16 AM Arun Suresh <asur...@apache.org<mailto: >> asur...@apache.org>> wrote: >> Hello yarn-dev@ >> >> We feel that the YARN-6592 dev branch mostly in shape to be merged into >> trunk. This branch adds support for placing containers in YARN using rich >> placement constraints. For example, this can be used by applications to >> co-locate containers on a node or rack (affinity constraint), spread >> containers across nodes or racks (anti-affinity constraint), or even >> specify the maximum number of containers on a node/rack (cardinality >> constraint). >> >> We have integrated this feature into the Distributed-Shell application >> for feature testing. We have performed end-to-end testing on >> moderately-sized clusters to verify that constraints work fine. Performance >> tests have been done via both SLS tests and Capacity Scheduler performance >> unit tests, and no regression was found. We have opened a JIRA to track >> Jenkins acceptance of the aggregated patch [2]. Documentation is in the >> process of being completed [3]. You can also check our design document for >> more details [4]. >> >> Config flags are needed to enable this feature and it should not have any >> effect on YARN when turned off. Once merged, we plan to work on further >> improvements, which can be tracked in the umbrella YARN-7812 [5]. >> >> Kindly do take a look at the branch and raise issues/concerns that need >> to be addressed before the merge. >> >> Many thanks to Konstantinos, Wangda, Panagiotis, Weiwei, and Sunil for >> their contributions to this effort, as well as Subru, Chris, Carlo, and >> Vinod for their inputs and discussions. >> >> Cheers >> -Arun >> >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6592 >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7792 >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7780 >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12867869/ >> YARN-6592-Rich-Placement-Constraints-Design-V1.pdf >> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7812 >> >> -- > Konstantinos >
