[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3020?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14271729#comment-14271729
]
Peter D Kirchner commented on YARN-3020:
----------------------------------------
Hi thank you for your comment. I believe your test works because it does all
addContainerRequest()s between two heartbeats, before any interaction with the
server on the accumulated requests. If you insert a Thread.sleep() of more
than the heartbeat interval in your test loop, allocate() is called in between
your requests, and you should get O(n2) containers for your n requests.
> n similar addContainerRequest()s produce n*(n+1)/2 containers
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-3020
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3020
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: client
> Affects Versions: 2.5.0, 2.6.0, 2.5.1, 2.5.2
> Reporter: Peter D Kirchner
> Original Estimate: 24h
> Remaining Estimate: 24h
>
> BUG: If the application master calls addContainerRequest() n times, but with
> the same priority, I get 1+2+3+...+n containers = n*(n+1)/2 .
> If the application master calls addContainerRequest() n times, but with a
> unique priority each time, I get n containers (as I intended).
> Analysis:
> There is a logic problem in AMRMClientImpl.java.
> Although AMRMClientImpl.java, allocate() does an ask.clear() , on subsequent
> calls to addContainerRequest(), addResourceRequest() finds the previous
> matching remoteRequest and increments the container count rather than
> starting anew, and does an addResourceRequestToAsk() which defeats the
> ask.clear().
> From documentation and code comments, it was hard for me to discern the
> intended behavior of the API, but the inconsistency reported in this issue
> suggests one case or the other is implemented incorrectly.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
