[ 
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: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Reply via email to