[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1651?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14723493#comment-14723493
 ] 

MENG DING commented on YARN-1651:
---------------------------------

[~leftnoteasy], I just realized that there is one issue not discussed in the 
protocol design regarding the {{ContainerResourceChangeRequestProto}} that may 
affect the scheduler:

{code}
message ContainerResourceChangeRequestProto {
  optional ContainerIdProto container_id = 1;
  optional ResourceProto capability = 2;
} 
{code}

Shall we add a priority field to {{ContainerResourceChangeRequestProto}}? 
Without a priority field, how does the scheduler decide the priority between 
increase/decrease request and new allocation request within the same 
application? Does it simply assume that the increase/decrease request has the 
highest priority within the same application? If so, that may not be the 
correct thing to do ... What do you think?

> CapacityScheduler side changes to support increase/decrease container 
> resource.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-1651
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1651
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: resourcemanager, scheduler
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Wangda Tan
>




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

Reply via email to