Just to add, when I am using Capacity Scheduler, the same request works
fine.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Gaurav Gupta
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am using CHD5 (Hadoop 2.3.0-cdh5.0.0) as my Hadoop Distro. I am using
> Fair Scheduler. I am requesting for two containers on a particular host,
> but
umber of racks in the cluster, this
>
>feature is disabled by default, set to -1.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Gaurav
>
>
>
> *From:* Sandy Ryza [mailto:sandy.r...@cloudera.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:41 PM
>
> *To:* user@hadoop.apache.
From: Sandy Ryza [mailto:sandy.r...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:41 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Allocating Containers on a particular Node in Yarn
Great to hear. Other answers inline
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Gaurav Gupta
wrote:
Sandy
urav
>
>
>
> *From:* Sandy Ryza [mailto:sandy.r...@cloudera.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:41 AM
> *To:* user@hadoop.apache.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Allocating Containers on a particular Node in Yarn
>
>
>
> Requesting the rack is not necessary, and is leadin
Gaurav
From: Sandy Ryza [mailto:sandy.r...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:41 AM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Allocating Containers on a particular Node in Yarn
Requesting the rack is not necessary, and is leading to the behavior that
you're seeing.
Requesting the rack is not necessary, and is leading to the behavior that
you're seeing.
The documentation states:
* If locality relaxation is disabled, then only within the same
request,
* a node and its rack may be specified together. This allows for a
specific
* rack with a preference
Here is the snippet of code that I am using to allocate containers
AMRMClient amRmClient =
AMRMClient.createAMRMClient();;
String host = "h1";
Resource capability = Records.newRecord(Resource.class);
capability.setMemory(memory);
nodes = new String[] {host};
// in order
In that case, the AMRMClient code looks correct to me. Can you share the
code you've written against it that's not receiving the correct containers?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:30 PM, gaurav wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I looked in the trunk and line numbers are 361 and 366.
>
> Thanks
> -Gaurav
>
> On 11/
Hi,
I looked in the trunk and line numbers are 361 and 366.
Thanks
-Gaurav
On 11/13/2013 5:04 PM, gaurav wrote:
I have hadoop-2.2.0
Thanks
-Gaurav
On 11/13/2013 4:59 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote:
What version are you using? Setting the relax locality to true for
nodes is always correct. For racks,
I have hadoop-2.2.0
Thanks
-Gaurav
On 11/13/2013 4:59 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote:
What version are you using? Setting the relax locality to true for
nodes is always correct. For racks, this is not necessarily the case.
When I look at trunk, it is set to true always on line 361 (which is
correct)
What version are you using? Setting the relax locality to true for nodes
is always correct. For racks, this is not necessarily the case. When I
look at trunk, it is set to true always on line 361 (which is correct), but
on on line 374.
-Sandy
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:47 PM, gaurav wrote:
>
Hi Sandy,
No it is not working for me. As mentioned earlier, AMRMClient is not
respecting the locality for node and rack in *Line 361 and 374 *and is
set to true always.
I am requesting for one container with specified node and rack and
relaxed locality false.
Thanks
-Gaurav
On 11/13/2013
[moving to user list]
Right. relaxLocality needs to be set on the next level up. It determines
whether locality can be relaxed to that level. Confusing, I know. If you
are using AMRMClient, you should be able to accomplish what you're looking
for by creating an AMRMClient.ContainerRequest that
13 matches
Mail list logo
