[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-562?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13633219#comment-13633219
]
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli commented on YARN-562:
----------------------------------------------
bq. Hey Jian, cluster_timestamp makes me think of vector clocks and such
(distributed synch clock), container_allocation_timestamp makes more sense. Any
specific reason to change it?
Haven't looked at the patch yet, but from my suggestion(in the first comment on
this ticket), it shouldn't be container_allocation_timestamp - as that would
mean the timestamp is per container. It is RM's startTimeStamp, may be we can
call it that..
> NM should reject containers allocated by previous RM
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-562
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-562
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: resourcemanager
> Reporter: Jian He
> Assignee: Jian He
> Attachments: YARN-562.1.patch, YARN-562.2.patch, YARN-562.3.patch
>
>
> Its possible that after RM shutdown, before AM goes down,AM still call
> startContainer on NM with containers allocated by previous RM. When RM comes
> back, NM doesn't know whether this container launch request comes from
> previous RM or the current RM. we should reject containers allocated by
> previous RM
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
