Wangda Tan commented on YARN-2004:

[~jlowe], [~sunilg]:

1) Regarding to per-queue priority limit:
I agree with per-queue priority limit could be added separately, but I think we 
may need a global priority limit to easier compare priority: It's easy to 
compare 101 and 190, but it maybe hard to compare 2123231223 and 2123123512. 
And showing a big-number priority on web UI is not good to me. So limit maximum 
priority is to have a better user experience.

2) Regarding to negative priority:
I prefer priority started from either 0/1.

3) Behavior when app.priority > max-priority-limit:
Should we just cap it by max-priority-limit instead of throw exception? 
Different from required-resource, priority is a hint to scheduler. Make a 
LOG.warn instead of reject it seems more friendly to me.

> 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, 0002-YARN-2004.patch, 
> 0003-YARN-2004.patch, 0004-YARN-2004.patch, 0005-YARN-2004.patch, 
> 0006-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

Reply via email to