[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-18692?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18032308#comment-18032308
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on HADOOP-18692:
-----------------------------------------
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #5538:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/5538#issuecomment-3434644723
We're closing this stale PR because it has been open for 100 days with no
activity. This isn't a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It's just a
way of keeping the PR queue manageable.
If you feel like this was a mistake, or you would like to continue working
on it, please feel free to re-open it and ask for a committer to remove the
stale tag and review again.
Thanks all for your contribution.
> User in staticPriorities cost also shouldn't be accumulated to
> totalDecayedCallCost and totalRawCallCost.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-18692
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-18692
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: common
> Reporter: Chenyu Zheng
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
>
> After HADOOP-17165, we can avoid to restrict some important user who has many
> request.
> In HADOOP-17346, the solution is similar to HADOOP-17165, but the user is
> service user. And another improvement in HADOOP-17346 is that we can avoid
> backoff by response time.
> HADOOP-17280 solve the problem "Service-user cost shouldn't be accumulated to
> totalDecayedCallCost and totalRawCallCost." for HADOOP-17165. HADOOP-17346
> also fix it.
> I think some code is redundancy, we should reconstruct.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
