[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3480?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14553451#comment-14553451
]
Jun Gong commented on YARN-3480:
--------------------------------
{quote}
Without doing this, we will unnecessarily be forcing apps to lose history
simply because the platform cannot recover quickly enough.
Thinking more, how about we only have (limits + asynchronous recovery) for
services, once YARN-1039 goes in? Non-service apps anyways are not expected to
have a lot of app-attempts.
{quote}
It is reasonable. I will update the patch once YARN-1039 goes in.
> Recovery may get very slow with lots of services with lots of app-attempts
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-3480
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3480
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: resourcemanager
> Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Reporter: Jun Gong
> Assignee: Jun Gong
> Attachments: YARN-3480.01.patch, YARN-3480.02.patch,
> YARN-3480.03.patch, YARN-3480.04.patch
>
>
> When RM HA is enabled and running containers are kept across attempts, apps
> are more likely to finish successfully with more retries(attempts), so it
> will be better to set 'yarn.resourcemanager.am.max-attempts' larger. However
> it will make RMStateStore(FileSystem/HDFS/ZK) store more attempts, and make
> RM recover process much slower. It might be better to set max attempts to be
> stored in RMStateStore.
> BTW: When 'attemptFailuresValidityInterval'(introduced in YARN-611) is set to
> a small value, retried attempts might be very large. So we need to delete
> some attempts stored in RMStateStore and RMStateStore.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
