[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4576?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15096737#comment-15096737
]
Sunil G commented on YARN-4576:
-------------------------------
bq.may be we can have configuration to identify if this is only a wish list or
a forcefully one?
Yes, this looks fine for me. AM already can ask resources on specific node for
its particular tasks, but RM knows few more information there such as capacity,
health, blacklisted or not by other apps etc. In such cases, RM can take a call
to disvow the request from AM. So {{ wish list}} is good option provides some
backup choices are also given AM or RM choose from its *white list*. In case of
{{forcefully one}}, AM can have the responsibility provided RM knows there were
some failures seen by other apps.
> Pluggable blacklist/whitelist policies in launching AM
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-4576
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4576
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: resourcemanager
> Reporter: Junping Du
> Assignee: Junping Du
> Priority: Critical
>
> Before YARN-2005, YARN blacklist mechanism is to track the bad nodes by AM:
> If AM tried to launch containers on a specific node get failed for several
> times, AM will blacklist this node in future resource asking. This mechanism
> works fine for normal containers. However, from our observation on behaviors
> of several clusters: if this problematic node launch AM failed, then RM could
> pickup this problematic node to launch next AM attempts again and again that
> cause application failure in case other functional nodes are busy. In normal
> case, the customized healthy checker script cannot be so sensitive to mark
> node as unhealthy when one or two containers get launched failed.
> After YARN-2005, we can have a BlacklistManager in each RMapp, so those nodes
> who launching AM attempts failed for specific application before will get
> blacklisted. To get rid of potential risks that all nodes being blacklisted
> by BlacklistManager, a disable-failure-threshold is involved to stop adding
> more nodes into blacklist if hit certain ratio already.
> There are already some enhancements for this AM blacklist mechanism:
> YARN-4284 is to address the more wider case for AM container get launched
> failure and YARN-4389 tries to make configuration settings available for
> change by App to meet app specific requirement. However, there are still
> several gaps to address more scenarios:
> 1. We may need a global blacklist instead of each app maintain a separated
> one. The reason is: AM could get more chance to fail if other AM get failed
> before. A quick example is: in a busy cluster, all nodes are busy except two
> problematic nodes: node a and node b, app1 already submit and get failed in
> two AM attempts on a and b. app2 and other apps should wait for other busy
> nodes rather than waste attempts on these two problematic nodes.
> 2. If AM container failure is recognized as global event instead app own
> issue, we should consider the blacklist is not a permanent thing but with a
> specific time window.
> 3. We could have user defined black list polices to address more possible
> cases and scenarios, so it reasonable to make blacklist policy pluggable.
> 4. For some test scenario, we could have whitelist mechanism for AM launching.
> 5. Some minor issues: it sounds like NM reconnect won't refresh blacklist so
> far.
> Will try to address all issues here.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
