[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14523935#comment-14523935
]
Craig Welch commented on YARN-3257:
-----------------------------------
The implementation looks correct to me functionally, but I wonder if this
should be something deferred to the policy? I realize on a practical level
this might mean some duplicate code, but I wonder if, from a policy/contract
perspective, it properly should be up to the policy to support or not support
this "exception to the rule" logic? This might mean expanding the signature on
the policy side to include the number of currently running apps as I don't know
that the policy is otherwise aware of that. I don't feel strongly that this
needs to be the approach, I just wanted to throw it out there for consideration.
> FairScheduler: MaxAm may be set too low preventing apps from starting
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-3257
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3257
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: fairscheduler
> Reporter: Anubhav Dhoot
> Assignee: Anubhav Dhoot
> Attachments: YARN-3257.001.patch
>
>
> In YARN-2637 CapacityScheduler#LeafQueue does not enforce max am share if the
> limit prevents the first application from starting. This would be good to add
> to FSLeafQueue as well
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
