Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217393983
Fixing the back-port in https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12950
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217393011
@zzcclp Ooops, weird, I must have somehow missed a step in resolving the
merge conflict. I'll get that fixed ASAP
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user zzcclp commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217320918
@srowen , add below code twice into branch 1.6:
`if (successful(index)) {`
` logInfo(`
`s"Task ${info.id} in stage ${taskSet.id} (TID $tid) failed
Github user jasonmoore2k commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217293599
Ta!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enab
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217249947
I back-ported to 1.6.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user kayousterhout commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217217520
I'm ok with merging this into 1.6. Usually I argue against back-porting
scheduler patches because they tend to be pretty risky and have high potential
for seriou
Github user jasonmoore2k commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217133890
Great, thanks! Not too concerned with 1.5 (and after checking it out looks
like it doesn't go on cleanly), but I've been testing this patch on top of the
1.6 bran
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217131369
It seems reasonable if it applies to the same code path cleanly in those
branches. Any other opinions?
I doubt there will be a 1.5.x release after this, and not sure
Github user jasonmoore2k commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217128160
@srowen Any chance of getting this picked onto the 1.5 and 1.6 branches too?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is ena
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217116765
Merged to master/2.0
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this f
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217116739
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217116736
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your projec
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217116501
**[Test build #57864 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/57864/consoleFull)**
for PR 12751 at commit
[`fa6068a`](https://g
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217100839
**[Test build #57864 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/57864/consoleFull)**
for PR 12751 at commit
[`fa6068a`](https://gi
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217100746
Jenkins retest this please
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user jasonmoore2k commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217081200
Done! Thanks for the review.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user jasonmoore2k commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#discussion_r62137083
--- Diff:
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/TaskSetManager.scala ---
@@ -716,7 +716,15 @@ private[spark] class TaskSetManager(
fai
Github user kayousterhout commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-217046675
With the logging fix, this LGTM! Thanks for fixing this!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user kayousterhout commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#discussion_r62136440
--- Diff:
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/TaskSetManager.scala ---
@@ -716,7 +716,15 @@ private[spark] class TaskSetManager(
fa
Github user andrewor14 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-216696371
Yeah, conceptually this LGTM. In speculation if a task already succeeded
then the slower failed attempt should not retry it again. @kayousterhout should
sign off in
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-216306239
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your projec
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-216306240
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-216305889
**[Test build #57534 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/57534/consoleFull)**
for PR 12751 at commit
[`a3e69c0`](https://g
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-216272889
**[Test build #57534 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/57534/consoleFull)**
for PR 12751 at commit
[`a3e69c0`](https://gi
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-216270300
Although that makes some logical sense to me, I'd really like to hear an
expert weigh in. Also paging @markhamstra @pwendell . It seems like Andrew
conceptually agreed w
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-216270326
Jenkins test this please
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have th
Github user jasonmoore2k commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-215325217
@andrewor14 @kayousterhout
Would appreciate your thoughts on this change (or anybody else who you
recommend with some experience with the task scheduler).
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751#issuecomment-215324080
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your p
GitHub user jasonmoore2k opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12751
[SPARK-14915] [CORE] Don't re-queue a task if another attempt has already
succeeded
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Don't re-queue a task if another attempt has al
30 matches
Mail list logo
