Skip to content

Conversation

@wujianping10043419
Copy link

…rDeployMode is 'client'. If userDeployMode is not 'client', the launcher shouldn't care about DRIVER_EXTRA_JAVA_OPTIONS, nor should it exit abnormally because DRIVER_EXTRA_JAVA_OPTIONS contains Xmx configuration.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

(Please fill in changes proposed in this fix)

How was this patch tested?

(Please explain how this patch was tested. E.g. unit tests, integration tests, manual tests)
(If this patch involves UI changes, please attach a screenshot; otherwise, remove this)

Please review http://spark.apache.org/contributing.html before opening a pull request.

…rDeployMode is 'client'. If userDeployMode is not 'client', the launcher shouldn't care about DRIVER_EXTRA_JAVA_OPTIONS, nor should it exit abnormally because DRIVER_EXTRA_JAVA_OPTIONS contains Xmx configuration.
@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented May 22, 2017

Although this could be moved, probably, it's not really worth bothering. It isn't actually redundant. If you specify driver memory settings in non-client mode, that should also be an error. Please close this.

@wujianping10043419
Copy link
Author

@srowen
The DRIVER_EXTRA_JAVA_OPTIONS is from a file. Maybe, Setting the parameter is an error. But Spark doesn't use it in non-client mode, nobody should pay for food who doesn't eat,so I think the code is not robust.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented May 22, 2017

The check is truly trivial, and the check is not actually irrelevant to non-client mode.

@wujianping10043419
Copy link
Author

@srowen But the check result in the abnormal exit, because an irrelevant parameters.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented May 23, 2017

This check is still correct for cluster mode. You should set memory with --driver-memory.

@srowen srowen mentioned this pull request Jun 7, 2017
@asfgit asfgit closed this in b771fed Jun 8, 2017
zifeif2 pushed a commit to zifeif2/spark that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2025
# What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to close stale PRs, mostly the same instances with apache#18017

Closes apache#11459
Closes apache#13833
Closes apache#13720
Closes apache#12506
Closes apache#12456
Closes apache#12252
Closes apache#17689
Closes apache#17791
Closes apache#18163
Closes apache#17640
Closes apache#17926
Closes apache#18163
Closes apache#12506
Closes apache#18044
Closes apache#14036
Closes apache#15831
Closes apache#14461
Closes apache#17638
Closes apache#18222

Added:
Closes apache#18045
Closes apache#18061
Closes apache#18010
Closes apache#18041
Closes apache#18124
Closes apache#18130
Closes apache#12217

Added:
Closes apache#16291
Closes apache#17480
Closes apache#14995

Added:
Closes apache#12835
Closes apache#17141

## How was this patch tested?

N/A

Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]>

Closes apache#18223 from HyukjinKwon/close-stale-prs.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants