[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7064?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16324221#comment-16324221
]
Haibo Chen commented on YARN-7064:
----------------------------------
bq. I think the logging inside isAvailable should be enough. I am not in favor
of logging the same thing duplicated.
Ah, I missed the logging in isAvailable(). Agree with you the current logging
is sufficient.
bq. Now we will send out the same error message on every tick of
ContainersMonitor as you requested
Help me understand this a little bit more. Under what circumstances, will
getMemorySize() fail for the same reason? We have two problems here whose
solution may conflict, misleading metrics because of swallowing exceptions
V.S. too much logging if not swallowing exceptions. Regardless of which one we
choose to favor, I think no design change to ContainersMonitorImpl is
necessary, that is we just need to decide if we want to swallow exceptions in
CGroupResourceCalculator.updateProcessTree().
> Use cgroup to get container resource utilization
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-7064
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7064
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Miklos Szegedi
> Assignee: Miklos Szegedi
> Attachments: YARN-7064.000.patch, YARN-7064.001.patch,
> YARN-7064.002.patch, YARN-7064.003.patch, YARN-7064.004.patch,
> YARN-7064.005.patch, YARN-7064.007.patch, YARN-7064.008.patch,
> YARN-7064.009.patch, YARN-7064.010.patch, YARN-7064.011.patch
>
>
> This is an addendum to YARN-6668. What happens is that that jira always wants
> to rebase patches against YARN-1011 instead of trunk.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
