Details

    • Type: Sub-task
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: timelineserver
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Jira to note the discussion points from an initial chat about integrating Timeline Service v2 with Federation (YARN-2915).

      cc Subru Krishnan Carlo Curino

      For Federation:

      • all entities that belong to the same flow run should have the same cluster name
      • app id in the same flow run strongly ordered in time
      • need a logical cluster name and physical cluster name
      • a possibility to implement the Application TimelineCollector as an interceptor in the AMRMProxyService.

      For Timeline Service:

      • need to store physical cluster id and logical cluster id so that we don't lose information at any level (flow/app/entity etc)
      • add a new table app id to cluster mapping table
      • need a different entity table/some table to store node level metrics for physical cluster stats. Once we get to node-level rollup, we probably have to store something in a dc, cluster, rack, node hierarchy. In that case a physical cluster makes sense, but we'd still need some way to tie physical and logical together in order to make automatic error detection etc that we're envisioning feasible within a federated setup.

      For the Cluster Naming convention:

      • three situations for cluster name:
        ----> app submitted to router should take federated (aka logical) cluster name
        ----> app submitted directly to RM should take physical cluster name
        ----> Info about the physical cluster in entities?
      • suggestion to set the cluster name as yarn tag at the router level (in the app submission context)

      Other points to note:

      • for federation to work smoothly in environments that use HDFS some additional considerations are needed, and possibly some solution like what is being used at Twitter with the nFly approach.

      Email thread context:

      
      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Joep Rottinghuis 
      Date: Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM
      Subject: Re: Federation -Timeline Service meeting notes
      To: Subramaniam Venkatraman Krishnan 
      Cc: Sangjin Lee, Vrushali Channapattan , Carlo Curino
      
      
      Thanks for the notes.
      
      I think that for federation to work smoothly in environments that use HDFS some additional considerations are needed, and possibly some solution like what we're using at Twitter with our nFly approach.
      
      bq. - need a different entity table/some table to store node level metrics for physical cluster stats
      Once we get to node-level rollup, we probably have to store something in a dc, cluster, rack, node hierarchy. In that case a physical cluster makes sense, but we'd still need some way to tie physical and logical together in order to make automatic error detection etc that we're envisioning feasible within a federated setup.
      
      Cheers,
      
      Joep
      
      On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Subramaniam Venkatraman Krishnan  wrote:
      
          Thanks Vrushali for crisply capturing the essential from our rambling discussion J.
      
           
      
          Sangjin, I just want to add one comment to yours – we want to retain the physical cluster name (possibly as a new entity type) so that we don’t lose information & we can cluster level rollups even if they are not efficient.
      
           
      
          Additionally, based on the walkthrough of Federation design:
      
          ·         There was general agreement with the proposed approach.
      
          ·         There is a possibility to implement the Application TimelineCollector as an interceptor in the AMRMProxyService.
      
          ·         Joep raised the concern that it would be better if the RMs obtain the epoch from FederationStateStore. This is not currently in the roadmap of our MVP but we definitely plan to address this in future.
      
           
      
          Regards,
      
          Subru
      
           
      
          From: Sangjin Lee
          Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:22 PM
          To: Vrushali Channapattan 
          Cc: Joep Rottinghuis; Carlo Curino; Subramaniam Venkatraman Krishnan 
          Subject: Re: Federation -Timeline Service meeting notes
      
           
      
          Thanks for the summary Vrushali!
      
           
      
          Just so that we're on the same page regarding the terminology, I understand we're using the terms "logical cluster" and "federated cluster" interchangeably.
      
           
      
          Also, between using the federated cluster name and the home cluster name as a solution, I think we were leaning towards the federated cluster name (although not concluded).
      
           
      
          On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Vrushali Channapattan wrote:
      
               
      
              For Federation:
      
              - all entities that belong to the same flow run should have the same cluster name
      
              - app id in the same flow run strongly ordered in time
      
              - need a logical cluster name and physical cluster name
      
              For Timeline Service:
      
              - need to store physical cluster id and logical cluster id so that we don't lose information at any level (flow/app/entity etc)
      
              - add a  new table app id to cluster mapping table
      
              - need a different entity table/some table to store node level metrics for physical cluster stats
      
              For the Cluster Naming convention:
      
              - three situations for cluster name:
      
              ----> app submitted to router should take federated cluster name
      
              ----> app submitted directly to RM should take physical cluster name
      
              ----> Info about the physical cluster  in entities?
      
              - suggestion to set the cluster name as yarn tag at the router level (in the app submission context)
      
       

        Issue Links

          Activity

          There are no comments yet on this issue.

            People

            • Assignee:
              varun_saxena Varun Saxena
              Reporter:
              vrushalic Vrushali C
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              7 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:

                Development