[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15552696#comment-15552696
]
Sunil G commented on YARN-2009:
-------------------------------
HI [~eepayne]
Thanks for sharing the details of the usecase .I have checked this problem and
I know why that scenario is not working.
{{FifoIntraQueuePreemptionPlugin.validateOutSameAppPriorityFromDemand}} is
added to ensure that we should not do preemption for demand from same priority
level. This code is hitting and causing Zero preemption in your scenarios.
I wanted to add a different condition for both scenarios (user-limit alone AND
user-limit + priority) but I would like to do that in another ticket. So it
will be easier to track and test. This current patch will still handle priority
and priority + user-limit. Thoughts? [~eepayne] and [~leftnoteasy]
> 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, YARN-2009.0002.patch,
> YARN-2009.0003.patch, YARN-2009.0004.patch, YARN-2009.0005.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]
