-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35678/#review88609
-----------------------------------------------------------



ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/YARN/2.1.0.2.0/package/scripts/yarn.py
 (line 150)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35678/#comment141205>

    I created AMBARI-12037 to track this request.


- Alejandro Fernandez


On June 20, 2015, 1:16 a.m., Alejandro Fernandez wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35678/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 20, 2015, 1:16 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Jonathan Hurley, Mahadev Konar, Nate Cole, and 
> Sumit Mohanty.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-12035
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-12035
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> STR:
> Deploy cluster with HDP 2.2 and HDFS, YARN, RM, ZK
> On the hosts with RM, make sure that there is no NameNode
> Enable NameNode HA, and RM HA
> Register HDP 2.3
> Start a long running job
> Perform an RU, which will fail because the RM hosts will not have hdfs-site 
> in its config folder /etc/hadoop/2.3.0.0-2800/0
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/YARN/2.1.0.2.0/metainfo.xml 
> 5385311 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/YARN/2.1.0.2.0/package/scripts/yarn.py
>  f33ad18 
>   ambari-server/src/test/python/stacks/2.0.6/YARN/test_resourcemanager.py 
> 448fc01 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35678/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Verified on a cluster with 2 RMs, one that was co-hosted with JournalNode, 
> and one without any HDFS components.
> Without the patch, the 2nd RM host did not have hdfs-site.xml; with the 
> patch, it did have hdfs-site.xml and the RU completed.
> 
> I added a # TODO comment to make this logic more robust in the future.
> 
> Unit tests passed
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Total run:762 
> Total errors:0 
> Total failures:0 
> OK
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alejandro Fernandez
> 
>

Reply via email to