[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2074?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14006459#comment-14006459 ]
Mayank Bansal commented on YARN-2074: ------------------------------------- Thanks [~jianhe] for the patch. Overall looks good. some nits {code} maxAppAttempts <= attempts.size() {code} Can we use this? {code} maxAppAttempts == getAttemptFailureCount() {code} {code} public boolean isPreempted() { return getDiagnostics().contains(SchedulerUtils.PREEMPTED_CONTAINER); } {code} I think we need to compare the exit status (-102) instead of relying on string message. > Preemption of AM containers shouldn't count towards AM failures > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-2074 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2074 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: resourcemanager > Reporter: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > Assignee: Jian He > Attachments: YARN-2074.1.patch, YARN-2074.2.patch > > > One orthogonal concern with issues like YARN-2055 and YARN-2022 is that AM > containers getting preempted shouldn't count towards AM failures and thus > shouldn't eventually fail applications. > We should explicitly handle AM container preemption/kill as a separate issue > and not count it towards the limit on AM failures. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2#6252)