[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2004?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14327527#comment-14327527
 ] 

Jason Lowe commented on YARN-2004:
----------------------------------

My thoughts are as I stated above.  We should not ignore priorities if one of 
the apps does not have a priority specified.  A lack of a specified priority on 
an application should imply a default priority value and still be compared to 
the other application's priority rather than skipping the priority comparison.  
That would be the expected behavior.  We can come up with all sorts of schemes 
to determine what the default priority value should be (e.g.: hardcoded default 
value, cluster-wide configurable, queue-specific configurable, etc.).  The 
important part is to not skip the priority comparison completely as that would 
be unexpected behavior for users.

> Priority scheduling support in Capacity scheduler
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-2004
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2004
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>            Reporter: Sunil G
>            Assignee: Sunil G
>         Attachments: 0001-YARN-2004.patch
>
>
> Based on the priority of the application, Capacity Scheduler should be able 
> to give preference to application while doing scheduling.
> Comparator<FiCaSchedulerApp> applicationComparator can be changed as below.   
>         
> 1.    Check for Application priority. If priority is available, then return 
> the highest priority job.
> 2.    Otherwise continue with existing logic such as App ID comparison and 
> then TimeStamp comparison.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to