[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4311?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15267463#comment-15267463
]
Jason Lowe commented on YARN-4311:
----------------------------------
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.
I think the changes to ResourceTrackerService are unnecessary. This patch
should not be changing the semantics of which nodes are allowed to participate
in the cluster. In practice I don't think those changes actually modify the
behavior, since it is impossible for a node to be valid yet untracked at the
same time.
I also think the logic in RMNodeImpl.deactivateNode could be simpler. If we're
putting a node in the inactive node list and the node is untracked then we want
to set the timestamp. At that point we don't care what the state of the node
is, so I think the SHUTDOWN state check is unnecessary. If somehow the state
was LOST, REBOOTED, DECOMMISSIONED, etc. we'd still want to start the clock
ticking on removing the untracked node once we add it to the inactive node list.
> 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-branch-2.7.001.patch,
> YARN-4311-branch-2.7.002.patch, YARN-4311-branch-2.7.003.patch,
> YARN-4311-branch-2.7.004.patch, YARN-4311-v1.patch, YARN-4311-v10.patch,
> YARN-4311-v11.patch, YARN-4311-v11.patch, YARN-4311-v12.patch,
> YARN-4311-v13.patch, YARN-4311-v13.patch, YARN-4311-v14.patch,
> YARN-4311-v15.patch, YARN-4311-v16.patch, YARN-4311-v2.patch,
> YARN-4311-v3.patch, YARN-4311-v4.patch, YARN-4311-v5.patch,
> YARN-4311-v6.patch, YARN-4311-v7.patch, YARN-4311-v8.patch, YARN-4311-v9.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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
