[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-392?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13663267#comment-13663267
]
Bikas Saha commented on YARN-392:
---------------------------------
bq. in a followup JIRA we can decide that setting the flag on a node-level
request warrants an exception. Or, in a followup JIRA, we can decide that
setting the flag on a node-level request is supported. Neither of these future
changes will be a backwards-incompatible change.
Makes sense to me.
We mean to that level and beyond? e.g. if the flag is set on a rack then it
implies locality wont be relaxed for that rack and * right? Thats what the code
in the patch does (continue if rack is false). OR does the flag need to be set
at rack AND * when asking for specific node?
{code}
+ * For a request at a network hierarchy level, set whether locality can be
relaxed
+ * to that level.
{code}
It might help if we write the example in the javadoc by specifying how to use
the flag to enable strict node locality. We dont have code checks about what it
legal wrt this flag but we should spell them out in the javadoc.
{code}
+ *
+ * For example, if the flag is off on a rack-level
<code>ResourceRequest</code>,
+ * containers at that request's priority will not be assigned to nodes on
that
+ * request's rack unless requests specifically for those nodes have also been
+ * submitted.
+ *
+ * If the flag is off on an any-level <code>ResourceRequest</code>,
containers at
+ * that request's priority will only be assigned on racks for which specific
+ * requests have also been submitted.
{code}
My grey cells are not what they used to be :) Can you please help me grok the
logic following statement?
{code}
+ return anyRequest.getNumContainers() > 0 &&
+ (nodeRequest == null || nodeRequest.getRelaxLocality()) &&
+ (anyRequest.getRelaxLocality() ||
+ (rackRequest != null && rackRequest.getNumContainers() > 0)) &&
+ (rackRequest == null || rackRequest.getRelaxLocality() ||
+ (nodeRequest != null && nodeRequest.getNumContainers() > 0)) &&
Resources.lessThanOrEqual(RESOURCE_CALCULATOR, null,
- request.getCapability(), node.getRMNode().getTotalCapability());
+ anyRequest.getCapability(), node.getRMNode().getTotalCapability());
{code}
You mean node2 right?
{code}
+ // then node1 should get the container
+ scheduler.handle(node2UpdateEvent);
+ assertEquals(1, app.getLiveContainers().size());
{code}
> 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-392-5.patch,
> YARN-392-6.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
