[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6156?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15863485#comment-15863485
]
Varun Saxena edited comment on YARN-6156 at 2/13/17 12:08 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
bq. And again AM container is allocated in another non-exclusive node. So we
are now +2 from old node count, correct?
We should only add this node(i.e. count it towards NM count) and not remove it
when AM containers fail then. Will be somewhat difficult to pass. Maybe update
it when RMContainer is created.
And a similar thing will have to be done in YARN-6148 if we do consider non
exclusive labels this way.
was (Author: varun_saxena):
bq. And again AM container is allocated in another non-exclusive node. So we
are now +2 from old node count, correct?
We should only add this node(i.e. count it towards NM count) and not remove it
when AM containers fail then. Will be somewhat difficult to pass. Maybe update
it when RMContainer comes to know about it. And a similar thing will have to be
done in YARN-6148 if we do consider non exclusive labels this way.
> AM blacklistdisableThreshold consider node partition count
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-6156
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6156
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Bibin A Chundatt
> Assignee: Bibin A Chundatt
> Attachments: YARN-6156.0001.patch, YARN-6156.0002.patch
>
>
> As per the current implementation for AM blacklisting disabling is based on
> completed custer resource.
> Incase of partitioned cluster, nodes applicable for AM labels only should be
> considered as total nodes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
