Junping Du commented on YARN-3225:

Thanks for quickly response, [~devaraj.k]!
bq. If we make the refreshNodesForcefully as same as refreshNodes() API, there 
could be a chance of becoming node state incosistent if the hosts file updated 
with the newnodes or removal of existing nodes after the refreshNodesGracefully 
and before the refreshNodesForcefully.
+1. That's good point.

bq. I feel we need to have difference that 
refreshNodes()/refreshNodesGracefully() should read the hosts file and 
refreshNodesForcefully() would not read the hosts file and only move the node 
Agree that this sounds better. However, as my suggestion above, we can still 
keep the same Admin API. In AdminService side, we can handle request (not 
boolean value now, could be a new enum :)) in three cases separately.

> New parameter or CLI for decommissioning node gracefully in RMAdmin CLI
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: YARN-3225
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3225
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Junping Du
>            Assignee: Devaraj K
>         Attachments: YARN-3225-1.patch, YARN-3225.patch, YARN-914.patch
> New CLI (or existing CLI with parameters) should put each node on 
> decommission list to decommissioning status and track timeout to terminate 
> the nodes that haven't get finished.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to