[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-392?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13661747#comment-13661747
]
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli commented on YARN-392:
----------------------------------------------
bq. The most common use case of black listing is to specify a set of nodes on
which no allocations should be made
bq. I am not suggesting that this blacklisting mechanism is there to address
the most common case. ...
IIUC, there is no point in supporting black-listing per resource-type. I don't
see a use-case for it. When you blacklist a node or a rack, you blacklist it.
You don't blacklist it for 5GB,5core containers but want to use it for
1GB/1core container.
Still catching up the discussion. But wanted to say that this has gone on for
too long. We should try and get this into 2.0.5.
Sandy/Bikas, can we just focus this for 'white-listing- per resource type
through the flag that was proposed (and seems to be the consensus earlier) and
use YARN-395 for blacklisting. I can close YARN-398 as duplicate.
> Make it possible to specify hard locality constraints in resource requests
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-392
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-392
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Bikas Saha
> Assignee: Sandy Ryza
> Attachments: YARN-392-1.patch, YARN-392-2.patch, YARN-392-2.patch,
> YARN-392-2.patch, YARN-392-3.patch, YARN-392-4.patch, YARN-392.patch
>
>
> Currently its not possible to specify scheduling requests for specific nodes
> and nowhere else. The RM automatically relaxes locality to rack and * and
> assigns non-specified machines to the app.
--
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
