[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3020?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14272463#comment-14272463
]
Steve Loughran commented on YARN-3020:
--------------------------------------
getting back more than you asked for is a situation I've encountered; when
doing a code review of that bit of Slider, the Samza team commented on it too.
This could be a root cause
> 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 up to 1+2+3+...+n containers = n*(n+1)/2 . The most
> containers are requested when the interval between calls to
> addContainerRequest() exceeds the heartbeat interval of calls to allocate()
> (in AMRMClientImpl's run() method).
> 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)
