[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15593001#comment-15593001
]
Eric Payne commented on YARN-2009:
----------------------------------
Hi [~sunilg]. I am confused by something you said in the [comment
above|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2009?focusedCommentId=15591597&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15591597]:
{quote}
I tested below case
{code}
...
"b\t" // app3 in b
+ "(4,1,n1,,40,false,20,_user1_);" + // app3 b
"b\t" // app1 in a
+ "(6,1,n1,,5,false,30,_user2_)";
...
{code}
{quote}
I assumed that the above was from a unit test. As far as I can tell, nothing in
the {{o.a.h.y.s.r.monitor.capacity}} framework supports testing with different
users. Were you using the above code as pseudocode to document a manual test?
> 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,
> YARN-2009.0006.patch, YARN-2009.0007.patch, YARN-2009.0008.patch,
> YARN-2009.0009.patch, YARN-2009.0010.patch, YARN-2009.0011.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]
