[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1055?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13740162#comment-13740162
]
Karthik Kambatla commented on YARN-1055:
----------------------------------------
[~hitesh], you are right - we should be careful in labeling failures one way or
the other.
We should probably classify the failures from a user-perspective and then look
into what configs are required. At the least, I see the following different
classes:
# Non-AM container/task failures
# AM container failures
# Bunch of (related) AMs failing due to node failures - nodes crashing or
network partitions or RM failure.
Thoughts?
> Handle app recovery differently for AM failures and RM restart
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-1055
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1055
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: resourcemanager
> Affects Versions: 2.1.0-beta
> Reporter: Karthik Kambatla
>
> Ideally, we would like to tolerate container, AM, RM failures. App recovery
> for AM and RM currently relies on the max-attempts config; tolerating AM
> failures requires it to be > 1 and tolerating RM failure/restart requires it
> to be = 1.
> We should handle these two differently, with two separate configs.
--
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
