[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEZ-1664?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14187243#comment-14187243
]
Bikas Saha commented on TEZ-1664:
---------------------------------
Minor. Is this local check needed. Local client is passing in the version info
(and it should always match in the local case, right?)
{code}+ if (!this.isLocal) {
+ // Check client - AM version compatibility
+ LOG.info("Comparing client version with AM version"
+ + ", clientVersion=" + clientVersion
+ + ", AMVersion=" + dagVersionInfo.getVersion());{code}
bq. If there is a version mismatch, we should treat this as a final attempt.
That should already be taken care of because the AM has essentially failed and
failed AMs unregister with the RM regardless of attempt number. So this special
casing should probably not be required.
bq. TezClient object and therefore would always be static within the same JVM
I agree. However lets keep it in TezClient instead of the JVM via a static.
Would be good to add throw a different diagnostic exception in
submitDAGToAppMaster so that clients can get a better message when they submit
a DAG to this AM while its in the process of shutting down.
> Add checks to ensure that the client and AM are compatible
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TEZ-1664
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEZ-1664
> Project: Apache Tez
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Hitesh Shah
> Assignee: Hitesh Shah
> Attachments: TEZ-1664.1.wip.patch, TEZ-1664.2.patch, TEZ-1664.3.patch
>
>
> There is a potential chance that a client is misconfigured wrongly to point
> to an incompatible tez tar ball on HDFS.
> Until we end up supporting either compatibility across various versions or
> uploading the tez tarball if not configured, we should do a version
> compatibility check and fail the AM if it was launched by an incompatible
> client.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
