[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4311?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14997503#comment-14997503
]
Kuhu Shukla commented on YARN-4311:
-----------------------------------
Thanks [~jlowe]. I was referring to my isInvalidAndAbsent method which should
be called isUntracked() as per last comment. Sorry for the confusion.
bq. To be consistent with HDFS the node should be gracefully decommissioned if
it it appears in the include and exclude list simultaneously, otherwise once
it's removed from the include list it's a hard decommission.
I see. This clarifies my doubt about decommissioning nodes that are taken out
of include lists.
bq.We could implement a "grace period" where nodes that were removed from the
cluster are still "tracked" in the UI for a while before being removed.
Could these be part of shutdown nodes or do we need a separate category for
such nodes? Would just the count of such nodes suffice or do we want to view
them while its within the grace period?
> Removing nodes from include and exclude lists will not remove them from
> decommissioned nodes list
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-4311
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4311
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.6.1
> Reporter: Kuhu Shukla
> Assignee: Kuhu Shukla
> Attachments: YARN-4311-v1.patch
>
>
> In order to fully forget about a node, removing the node from include and
> exclude list is not sufficient. The RM lists it under Decomm-ed nodes. The
> tricky part that [~jlowe] pointed out was the case when include lists are not
> used, in that case we don't want the nodes to fall off if they are not active.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
