[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1008?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13740101#comment-13740101
]
Sandy Ryza commented on YARN-1008:
----------------------------------
Is there a reason for using "include-port-in-node.name" and not
"include-port-in-node-name"? Also, would it make sense to turn it on by default
in MiniYARNCluster? Or put some doc there to let people know about its
existence?
Otherwise, LGTM.
> MiniYARNCluster with multiple nodemanagers, all nodes have same key for
> allocations
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-1008
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1008
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: nodemanager
> Affects Versions: 2.1.0-beta
> Reporter: Alejandro Abdelnur
> Assignee: Alejandro Abdelnur
> Attachments: YARN-1008.patch, YARN-1008.patch, YARN-1008.patch,
> YARN-1008.patch
>
>
> While the NMs are keyed using the NodeId, the allocation is done based on the
> hostname.
> This makes the different nodes indistinguishable to the scheduler.
> There should be an option to enabled the host:port instead just port for
> allocations. The nodes reported to the AM should report the 'key' (host or
> host:port).
--
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
