Hadoop QA commented on YARN-1582:

{color:red}-1 overall{color}.  Here are the results of testing the latest 
  against trunk revision 89b0749.

    {color:green}+1 @author{color}.  The patch does not contain any @author 

    {color:green}+1 tests included{color}.  The patch appears to include 1 new 
or modified test files.

    {color:green}+1 javac{color}.  The applied patch does not increase the 
total number of javac compiler warnings.

    {color:green}+1 javadoc{color}.  There were no new javadoc warning messages.

    {color:green}+1 eclipse:eclipse{color}.  The patch built with 

    {color:green}+1 findbugs{color}.  The patch does not introduce any new 
Findbugs (version 2.0.3) warnings.

        {color:red}-1 release audit{color}.  The applied patch generated 1 
release audit warnings.

    {color:red}-1 core tests{color}.  The patch failed these unit tests in 


Test results: 
Release audit warnings: 
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-YARN-Build/6458//console

This message is automatically generated.

> Capacity Scheduler: add a maximum-allocation-mb setting per queue 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-1582
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1582
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 0.23.10, 2.2.0
>            Reporter: Thomas Graves
>            Assignee: Thomas Graves
>         Attachments: YARN-1582-branch-0.23.patch, YARN-1582.002.patch, 
> YARN-1582.003.patch
> We want to allow certain queues to use larger container sizes while limiting 
> other queues to smaller container sizes.  Setting it per queue will help 
> prevent abuse, help limit the impact of reservations, and allow changes in 
> the maximum container size to be rolled out more easily.
> One reason this is needed is more application types are becoming available on 
> yarn and certain applications require more memory to run efficiently. While 
> we want to allow for that we don't want other applications to abuse that and 
> start requesting bigger containers then what they really need.  
> Note that we could have this based on application type, but that might not be 
> totally accurate either since for example you might want to allow certain 
> users on MapReduce to use larger containers, while limiting other users of 
> MapReduce to smaller containers.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to