[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14276020#comment-14276020
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-2933:
----------------------------------
[~mayank_bansal],
Thanks for update, two minor comments:
1) ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy.setNodeLabels is too simple to be a
method, it's better to remove it.
2) It's better to use enum here instead of integer
{code}
+ private int[] priority = {
+ 0, // Normal Container
+ 1, // AM Container
+ 2 // Labeled Container
+ };
+
{code}
Thanks,
Wangda
> Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without
> labels temporarily
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-2933
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: capacityscheduler
> Reporter: Wangda Tan
> Assignee: Mayank Bansal
> Attachments: YARN-2933-1.patch, YARN-2933-2.patch, YARN-2933-3.patch,
> YARN-2933-4.patch, YARN-2933-5.patch, YARN-2933-6.patch, YARN-2933-7.patch
>
>
> Currently, we have capacity enforcement on each queue for each label in
> CapacityScheduler, but we don't have preemption policy to support that.
> YARN-2498 is targeting to support preemption respect node labels, but we have
> some gaps in code base, like queues/FiCaScheduler should be able to get
> usedResource/pendingResource, etc. by label. These items potentially need to
> refactor CS which we need spend some time carefully think about.
> For now, what immediately we can do is allow calculate ideal_allocation and
> preempt containers only for resources on nodes without labels, to avoid
> regression like: A cluster has some nodes with labels and some not, assume
> queueA isn't satisfied for resource without label, but for now, preemption
> policy may preempt resource from nodes with labels for queueA, that is not
> correct.
> Again, it is just a short-term enhancement, YARN-2498 will consider
> preemption respecting node-labels for Capacity Scheduler which is our final
> target.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
