[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14583854#comment-14583854
]
Jian He commented on YARN-3017:
-------------------------------
IMHO, although this theoretically doesn't break compatibility, but may be so in
practice for some existing 3rd party tools. Also, if cluster is rolling
upgraded from 2.6, then we have the same containerId printed with two different
formats, which makes debugging process harder.
I don't know why containerId was originally written in that way to only print 2
digits, but one reason I can think of is that in reality we won't see a large
number of attempt failures (let alone the max-attempts is set to 2 by defaults).
> ContainerID in ResourceManager Log Has Slightly Different Format From
> AppAttemptID
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-3017
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3017
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.8.0
> Reporter: MUFEED USMAN
> Assignee: Mohammad Shahid Khan
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: PatchAvailable
> Attachments: YARN-3017.patch, YARN-3017_1.patch, YARN-3017_2.patch,
> YARN-3017_3.patch
>
>
> Not sure if this should be filed as a bug or not.
> In the ResourceManager log in the events surrounding the creation of a new
> application attempt,
> ...
> ...
> 2014-11-14 17:45:37,258 INFO
> org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.amlauncher.AMLauncher: Launching
> masterappattempt_1412150883650_0001_000002
> ...
> ...
> The application attempt has the ID format "_1412150883650_0001_000002".
> Whereas the associated ContainerID goes by "_1412150883650_0001_02_".
> ...
> ...
> 2014-11-14 17:45:37,260 INFO
> org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.amlauncher.AMLauncher: Setting
> up
> container Container: [ContainerId: container_1412150883650_0001_02_000001,
> NodeId: n67:55933, NodeHttpAddress: n67:8042, Resource: <memory:2048,
> vCores:1,
> disks:0.0>, Priority: 0, Token: Token { kind: ContainerToken, service:
> 10.10.70.67:55933 }, ] for AM appattempt_1412150883650_0001_000002
> ...
> ...
> Curious to know if this is kept like that for a reason. If not while using
> filtering tools to, say, grep events surrounding a specific attempt by the
> numeric ID part information may slip out during troubleshooting.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
