[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15504876#comment-15504876
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-2009:
----------------------------------
[~sunilg] / [~leftnoteasy]
I am still in the middle of reviewing the patch, but I have a couple of overall
concerns about the design of
{{FifoIntraQueuePreemptionPolicy#computeAppsIdealAllocation}}
- If we will be combining FIFO priority and FIFO MULP preemption, then I don't
think {{idealAssigned}} can be calculated independently from each other:
-- I think that all apps in a queue should be grouped according to user
{{Map<user, applications>}}
-- I think there should be a separate {{TAMinUserLimitPctComparator}} that
calculates underserved users based on min user limit percent.
--- Comparator would try to balance MULP across all users like the Capacity
Scheduler does
-- I think {{TAPriorityComparator}} should then only be given apps from the
same user.
- Once we have {{idalAssigned}} per user, then we can divide that up among apps
belonging to that user.
> Priority support for preemption in ProportionalCapacityPreemptionPolicy
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-2009
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: capacityscheduler
> Reporter: Devaraj K
> Assignee: Sunil G
> Attachments: YARN-2009.0001.patch
>
>
> While preempting containers based on the queue ideal assignment, we may need
> to consider preempting the low priority application containers first.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
