[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14392211#comment-14392211 ]
Craig Welch commented on YARN-3318: ----------------------------------- [~leftnoteasy] SchedulerProcessEvents replaced with containerAllocated and containerReleased Serial and SerialEpoch replaced with compareInputOrderTo(), which is the option 2 for addressing it which we settled on offline Added addSchedulerProcess/removeSchedulerProcess/addAllSchedulerProcesses Changed configuration so that yarn.scheduler.capacity.root.default.ordering-policy=fair will setup the fair configuration, "fifo" will setup fifo, "fair+fifo" will setup compound fair + fifo, etc. It is possible to setup a custom ordering policy class using a different configuration, but the base one will handle the "friendly" setup. [~vinodkv] bq. It is not entirely clear how the ordering and limits work together - as one policy with multiple facets or multiple policy types This should be modeled as different types of policies, so that they can each focus on their particular purpose and avoid a repetition of the intermingling which has made it difficult to mix, match, and share capabilities. Having multiple policy types is essential to make it easy to combine them as needed. bq. let's split the patch that exposes this to the client side / web UI and in the API records into its own JIRA...premature to support this as a publicly supportable configuration... The goal is to make this available quickly but iteratively, keeping the changes small but making them available for use and feedback. Clearly we can mark things "unstable", communicate that they are not fully mature/subject to change/should be used gently, but we will need to make it possible to activate the feature and use it in order to accomplish the use and feedback. We should grow it organically, gradually, iteratively, think of it is a facet of the policy framework hooked up and available but with more to follow bq. ...SchedulableEntity better... well, I'd actually talked [~leftnoteasy] into SchedulerProcess :-) So, we can chew on this a bit more & see where we go bq. You add/remove applications to/from LeafQueue's policy but addition/removal of containers is an event... This has been factored differently along [~leftnoteasy]'s suggestion, it should now be consistent bq. The notion of a comparator doesn't make sense to an admin. It is simply a policy... Have modeled "policy configuration" differently, so "comparator" is out of sight (see above). bq. Depending on how ordering and limits come together, they may become properties of a policy I expect them to be distinct, this is specifically an "ordering-policy", limits will be other types of "limit-policy"(ies) patch with these changes to follow in a few... > Create Initial OrderingPolicy Framework, integrate with CapacityScheduler > LeafQueue supporting present behavior > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: YARN-3318 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3318 > Project: Hadoop YARN > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: scheduler > Reporter: Craig Welch > Assignee: Craig Welch > Attachments: YARN-3318.13.patch, YARN-3318.14.patch, > YARN-3318.17.patch, YARN-3318.34.patch, YARN-3318.35.patch, YARN-3318.36.patch > > > Create the initial framework required for using OrderingPolicies with > SchedulerApplicaitonAttempts and integrate with the CapacityScheduler. This > will include an implementation which is compatible with current FIFO behavior. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)