[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16366168#comment-16366168 ] Konstantinos Karanasos commented on YARN-7920: -- Patch looks good, thanks [~leftnoteasy]. There are a few checkstyle issues left. Anyway, I will fix them and commit in a bit, because I will not be available to commit this tomorrow. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch, > YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch, YARN-7920.005.patch, > YARN-7920.006.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16365444#comment-16365444
]
genericqa commented on YARN-7920:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
10s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 6 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
10s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 18m
35s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 11m
30s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
28s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 3m
24s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
14m 59s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m
15s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-api in
trunk has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
29s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
10s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 8m
35s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 8m
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
1m 32s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn: The patch
generated 15 new + 408 unchanged - 0 fixed = 423 total (was 408) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 4m
41s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
2s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
12m 48s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
0s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
41s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-api in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
5s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 68m 0s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 29m 53s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
18s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-site in the
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16365246#comment-16365246 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- Attached ver.6 patch for the ASF warning, failed test case is not related, which is tracked by YARN-7918. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch, > YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch, YARN-7920.005.patch, > YARN-7920.006.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16365174#comment-16365174
]
genericqa commented on YARN-7920:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
41s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 6 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
9s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 15m
0s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 9m
0s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
0s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
44s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
13m 2s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m
14s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-api in
trunk has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
26s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
12s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
19s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 6m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 6m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
1m 3s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn: The patch
generated 15 new + 408 unchanged - 0 fixed = 423 total (was 408) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 3m
3s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
2s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
10m 20s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
32s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
43s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-api in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
19s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 66m
40s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch
passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 28m 8s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
21s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-sit
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16365097#comment-16365097 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- Updated (Ver.5) patch, also converted to standard markdown, only a few lines of change. Removed .vm suffix. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch, > YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch, YARN-7920.005.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16365092#comment-16365092 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- Thanks [~kkaranasos], the .md.vm is not supported by Intellij and standard markdown editor. If everybody agrees, I can convert it to the standard .md DisabledConstraintProcessor is fine. Will update the patch shortly. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch, > YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16364783#comment-16364783 ] Konstantinos Karanasos commented on YARN-7920: -- Re: configuration, I think it is simpler at the moment to leave it as is (i.e., placement-processor/scheduler). I chatted offline with Arun and he is fine with is as well. Re: the .md.vm format, I remember [~cheersyang] used this format for the opportunistic containers doc that I had written, so I thought it is preferable. Weiwei, any advantages in this format? Re: the naming, I think all is fine now apart from the NonePlacementProcessor that sounds weird. Looking at it better, indeed Default is not okay (initially I thought it is a no-op, but in fact it rejects scheduling requests). Any of the following is fine with me: DisabledConstraintProcessor, UnsupportedConstraintProcessor, RejectConstraintProcessor? >From a quick look, documentation looks fine. I can make a pass over it before >I commit the patch. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch, > YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16364248#comment-16364248
]
Sunil G commented on YARN-7920:
---
I think a name like {{placement-processor}} seems more simple for now. We can
add more detailed description for user configuration to explain the meaning a
bit more.
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> -
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Wangda Tan
>Assignee: Wangda Tan
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch,
> YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16364214#comment-16364214 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- + [~cheersyang] > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch, > YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16364083#comment-16364083
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920:
--
{quote}If you don't like priority/placement-optimized, how about calling the
key "placement strategy" and the values "reject-after-retry" and
"queue-till-satisfied" where reject implies the processor
{quote}
This is even worse than {{priority-optimized}} / {{placement-optimized}}, why
it is important to user to understand a scheduling request will be rejected
after retry, and this is subject to change as well. I would still prefer the
"scheduler", "placement-processor" value. Just like the AMS processor config.
[~sunilg] / [~kkaranasos], could you share your thoughts here?
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> -
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Wangda Tan
>Assignee: Wangda Tan
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch,
> YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363849#comment-16363849
]
genericqa commented on YARN-7920:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
16s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 6 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 16m
58s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 8m
4s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
6s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 3m
9s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
14m 34s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m
22s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-api in
trunk has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
36s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
39s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 7m
9s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 7m
9s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
1m 6s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn: The patch
generated 14 new + 409 unchanged - 0 fixed = 423 total (was 409) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 3m
18s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
2s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
11m 48s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
6s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
28s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
44s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-api in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
18s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 64m 32s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 28m 57s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
17s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-site in the
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363733#comment-16363733
]
genericqa commented on YARN-7920:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
26s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 6 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
48s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 15m
27s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 9m
51s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
59s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 3m
0s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
13m 18s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m
15s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-api in
trunk has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
8s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
27s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 9m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 9m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
0m 57s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn: The patch
generated 5 new + 409 unchanged - 0 fixed = 414 total (was 409) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
46s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
2s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
9m 53s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing our
client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
7s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
40s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-api in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
20s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 78m 11s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 28m 32s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
14s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-site in the p
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363667#comment-16363667 ] Arun Suresh commented on YARN-7920: --- bq. More likely, the two handler will be merged in the future into the same one and user doesn't need to choose. Agreed that both approaches might merge in the future. But at the moment, I strongly believe we should give it a more user focused value (since end users don't care HOW it is implemented - only what each option offers). If you don't like priority/placement-optimized, how about calling the key "placement strategy" and the values "reject-after-retry" and "queue-till-satisfied" where reject implies the processor - since the requests are rejected if not satisfied in a configurable number of AM heartbeats, while the scheduler approach keeps them in queue. Everything else looks fine. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch, > YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363645#comment-16363645
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920:
--
Thanks [~asuresh],
Addressed:
{quote} * the \{{ amsProcessingChain.init(rmContext, null);}} call should be in
the {{initializeProcessingChain}} method.
* With regard to the {{SchedulerPlacementProcessor}}, we are assuming that if
enabled, then placement constraints CANNOT be specified via the registerAM
call.. Technically, you can still specify constraints in the register call -
the schedulingRequest just overrides it.{quote}
For:
{quote}maybe we should call it "priority-optimized" and "placement-optimized" ?
Thoughts ?
{quote}
I would prefer not, the processor handler could improve priority support and
the scheduler handler could improve placement support. More likely, the two
handler will be merged in the future into the same one and user doesn't need to
choose. Let's keep the name open so we don't have to find a different name once
the functionalities of each handler get improved.
Attached ver.4, please review.
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> -
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Wangda Tan
>Assignee: Wangda Tan
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch,
> YARN-7920.003.patch, YARN-7920.004.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363595#comment-16363595
]
Arun Suresh commented on YARN-7920:
---
Thanks for working on this [~leftnoteasy]
Couple of comments:
* the {{ amsProcessingChain.init(rmContext, null);}} call should be in the
{{initializeProcessingChain}} method.
* With regard to the {{SchedulerPlacementProcessor}}, we are assuming that if
enabled, then placement constraints CANNOT be specified via the registerAM
call.. Technically, you can still specify constraints in the register call -
the schedulingRequest just overrides it.
* I agree with [~kkaranasos], we should make the value of the handler something
the user should make sense of. Given that the major difference between the two
approaches are the fact that the scheduler still handles for request in
priority order and the processor tries to optimize for placement, ignoring
priority, maybe we should call it "priority-optimized" and
"placement-optimized" ? Thoughts ?
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> -
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Wangda Tan
>Assignee: Wangda Tan
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch,
> YARN-7920.003.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363557#comment-16363557
]
Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920:
--
Thanks [~kkaranasos] for review:
{quote} * The naming external processor is a bit redundant and not very
descriptive. Let's call it {{PlacementConstraintProcessor}}, since this is what
it does.{quote}
Updated, and renamed handler to "placement-processor".
{quote} * Similarly, in the comments of YarnConfiguration, "external which sits
outside of the scheduler" is not very helpful about why this should be used.
Let's say "Handle placement constraints by processor that is agnostic of the
scheduler implementation".{quote}
I just copied contents from markdown file, please let me know if that looks
better. This should not matter since this field is marked to \{{@Private}}.
User should get the source of truth from official documentation.
{quote} * Also, shall we call the {{NoneProcessor}} -> {{DefaultProcessor}} or
something along these lines?{quote}
Would prefer not, the "Default" is not meaningful, would prefer to keep "none"
since it means "no handler to process the SchedulingRequest".
{quote} * At some places you use the term "placement requests". Maybe say
scheduling requests?{quote}
Done.
I just updated markdown doc (why it is using a non-standard markdown? Any
advantage of this format?).
Made changes to the whole "Enabling placement constraints" section according to
the code changes. Please very carefully review this change and let me know if
it looks good.
Since this is blocker of 3.1.0, I would like to get this resolved by Friday.
[~asuresh]/[~kkaranasos], could you help to review easier if possible?
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> -
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Wangda Tan
>Assignee: Wangda Tan
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363348#comment-16363348
]
Konstantinos Karanasos commented on YARN-7920:
--
Hi [~leftnoteasy],
{quote}I would still prefer to "scheduler", otherwise it will be a duplicated
config to yarn.resourcemanager.scheduler, and once FS want to support the
feature, we need to add a new option and document, etc.
{quote}
Sure, makes sense.
Re: the patch, I will check in more detail the implementation, but a first few
comments about the naming:
* The naming external processor is a bit redundant and not very descriptive.
Let's call it {{PlacementConstraintProcessor}}, since this is what it does.
* Similarly, in the comments of YarnConfiguration, "external which sits
outside of the scheduler" is not very helpful about why this should be used.
Let's say "Handle placement constraints by processor that is agnostic of the
scheduler implementation".
* Also, shall we call the {{NoneProcessor}} -> {{DefaultProcessor}} or
something along these lines?
* At some places you use the term "placement requests". Maybe say scheduling
requests?
Also, I agree with [~sunilg] to update the doc in the same Jira, it should be
very few changes.
I would also like to hear from [~asuresh], since he added the processor.
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> -
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Wangda Tan
>Assignee: Wangda Tan
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16362500#comment-16362500
]
genericqa commented on YARN-7920:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
27s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 6 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
10s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 15m
52s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 7m
31s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
4s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
47s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
13m 43s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m
12s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-api in
trunk has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
9s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
7s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 6m
15s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 6m
15s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
1m 3s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn: The patch
generated 8 new + 408 unchanged - 0 fixed = 416 total (was 408) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
38s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
10m 17s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
47s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
7s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
44s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-api in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
15s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 65m
35s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch
passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 27m 39s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 0m
33s{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 1 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}173m 23s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.client.api.impl.TestAMRMClientPlacementConstraints |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hadoop:5b98639 |
| JIRA Issue | YARN-7920 |
| JIRA Patch
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16362232#comment-16362232 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- Attached patch (ver.2) addressed comments from Sunil. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch, YARN-7920.002.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16362027#comment-16362027 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- Thanks [~sunilg], I plan to update documentation in a separate Jira or after general consensus reached for proposed changes. I will address rest of the comments in the next patch. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16362022#comment-16362022
]
genericqa commented on YARN-7920:
-
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
25s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 5 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
9s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 14m
53s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 7m
16s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
52s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
23s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
12m 3s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m
10s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-api in
trunk has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
58s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
5s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 8m
38s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 8m
38s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
0m 57s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn: The patch
generated 9 new + 408 unchanged - 0 fixed = 417 total (was 408) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
2s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
9m 40s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing our
client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
49s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
48s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
39s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-api in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
29s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 80m 19s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 28m 25s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-yarn-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 0m
33s{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 1 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}186m 38s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.scheduler.capacity.TestCapacitySchedulerSchedulingRequestUpdate
|
| | hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestRMEmbeddedElector |
| | hadoop.yarn.client.api.impl.TestAMRMClientPlacementCons
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16361907#comment-16361907
]
Sunil G commented on YARN-7920:
---
Thanks [~leftnoteasy] for the patch. Refactoring looks fine to me.
Few comments in general
# {{YarnConfiguration.java}} has few new properties added, could you please
help to update javadoc of those a bit more with details.
# For above configs, i think we can skip
DEFAULT_RM_PLACEMENT_CONSTRAINTS_HANDLER and have only
NONE_RM_PLACEMENT_CONSTRAINTS_HANDLER
# Please update {{PlacementConstraints.md.vm}} where we are mentioning about
{{yarn.resourcemanager.placement-constraints.enabled}}
> Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
> -
>
> Key: YARN-7920
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Wangda Tan
>Assignee: Wangda Tan
>Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch
>
>
> Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files
> (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml).
>
> Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in
> CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit:
>
> - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new
> placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable
> values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b.
> scheduler.
> - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to
> scheduler without any modifications.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16360317#comment-16360317 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- Attached ver.1 patch, [~kkaranasos]/[~asuresh]/[~sunilg] please help with review. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: YARN-7920.001.patch > > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16360265#comment-16360265 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- Thanks [~kkaranasos], I would still prefer to "scheduler", otherwise it will be a duplicated config to yarn.resourcemanager.scheduler, and once FS want to support the feature, we need to add a new option and document, etc. We can add a check in the processor to throw an exception if the configured scheduler is not CS, sounds like a plan? > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16360261#comment-16360261 ] Konstantinos Karanasos commented on YARN-7920: -- Hi [~leftnoteasy], +1 for simplifying the configuration. I think it is a good idea to use just one conf. I would call the scheduler choice "capacity-scheduler", given that it would not work for the fair scheduler. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (YARN-7920) Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16359712#comment-16359712 ] Wangda Tan commented on YARN-7920: -- cc: [~sunilg], [~kkaranasos]: I plan to work on a patch tomorrow, please let me know if the proposal looks good to you. > Cleanup configuration of PlacementConstraints > - > > Key: YARN-7920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7920 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Wangda Tan >Assignee: Wangda Tan >Priority: Blocker > > Currently it is very confusing to have the two configs in two different files > (yarn-site.xml and capacity-scheduler.xml). > > Maybe a better approach is: we can delete the scheduling-request.allowed in > CS, and update placement-constraints configs in yarn-site.xml a bit: > > - Remove placement-constraints.enabled, and add a new > placement-constraints.handler, by default is none, and other acceptable > values are a. external-processor (since algorithm is too generic to me), b. > scheduler. > - And add a new PlacementProcessor just to pass SchedulingRequest to > scheduler without any modifications. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
