[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10613?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17289323#comment-17289323 ]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-10613: ----------------------------------- As far as property names go, the logical thing to do would be to add the following two properties (one that affects inter-queue and one that affectsr intra-queue preemption): {code} yarn.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity.preemption.intra-queue-preemption.conservative-drf yarn.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity.preemption.inter-queue-preemption.conservative-drf {code} However, those very long names are exactly the same except for 1 character. For the sake of readability, I suggest the following instead: {code} yarn.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity.preemption.in-queue-preemption.conservative-drf yarn.resourcemanager.monitor.capacity.preemption.cross-queue-preemption.conservative-drf {code} > Config to allow Intra- and Inter-queue preemption to enable/disable > conservativeDRF > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: YARN-10613 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10613 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: capacity scheduler, scheduler preemption > Affects Versions: 3.3.0, 3.2.2, 3.1.4, 2.10.1 > Reporter: Eric Payne > Assignee: Eric Payne > Priority: Minor > > YARN-8292 added code that prevents CS intra-queue preemption from preempting > containers from an app unless all of the major resources used by the app are > greater than the user limit for that user. > Ex: > | Used | User Limit | > | <58GB, 58> | <30GB, 300> | > In this example, only used memory is above the user limit, not used vcores. > So, intra-queue preemption will not occur. > YARN-8292 added the {{conservativeDRF}} flag to > {{CapacitySchedulerPreemptionUtils#tryPreemptContainerAndDeductResToObtain}}. > If {{conservativeDRF}} is false, containers will be preempted from apps in > the example state. If true, containers will not be preempted. > This flag is hard-coded to false for Inter-queue (cross-queue) preemption and > true for intra-queue (in-queue) preemption. > I propose that in some cases, we want intra-queue preemption to be more > aggressive and preempt in the example case. To accommodate that, I propose > the addition of a config property. > Also, we may want inter-queue (cross-queue) preemption to be more > conservative, so I propose also making that a configuration property: -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org