[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3415?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14385202#comment-14385202
]
Rohit Agarwal commented on YARN-3415:
-------------------------------------
> if (!isAmRunning() && getLiveContainers().size() == 1 && !getUnmanagedAM()) {
Few points:
# If the above approach is valid - why do we need the {{getLiveContainers()}}
check at all?
# I don't see any place where we are setting {{amRunning}} to {{false}} once it
is set to {{true}}. Should we do that for completeness?
# Why is there no {{getUnmanagedAM()}} check in {{removeApp}} where we are
subtracting from {{amResourceUsage}}. I think the conditions for adding and
subtracting {{amResourceUsage}} should be similar as much as possible.
> Non-AM containers can be counted towards amResourceUsage of a fairscheduler
> queue
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-3415
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3415
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: fairscheduler
> Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Reporter: Rohit Agarwal
> Assignee: zhihai xu
>
> We encountered this problem while running a spark cluster. The
> amResourceUsage for a queue became artificially high and then the cluster got
> deadlocked because the maxAMShare constrain kicked in and no new AM got
> admitted to the cluster.
> I have described the problem in detail here:
> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5233#issuecomment-87160289
> In summary - the condition for adding the container's memory towards
> amResourceUsage is fragile. It depends on the number of live containers
> belonging to the app. We saw that the spark AM went down without explicitly
> releasing its requested containers and then one of those containers memory
> was counted towards amResource.
> cc - [~sandyr]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
