[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16364083#comment-16364083
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920:
----------------------------------
{quote}If you don't like priority/placement-optimized, how about calling the
key "placement strategy" and the values "reject-after-retry" and
"queue-till-satisfied" where reject implies the processor
{quote}
This is even worse than {{priority-optimized}} / {{placement-optimized}}, why
it is important to user to understand a scheduling request will be rejected
after retry, and this is subject to change as well. I would still prefer the
"scheduler", "placement-processor" value. Just like the AMS processor config.
[~sunilg] / [~kkaranasos], could you share your thoughts here?
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Wangda Tan
> Assignee: Wangda Tan
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch,
> YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
