Github user kayousterhout commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3541#issuecomment-65140196
Yeah, @mridulm made this "secret" based on an assumption that it was a
stopgap solution:
"Regarding timeout variable name : I was considering a very specific
variable name to allow for a better/future approach to handling this issue -
and at that time allow us to retire this variable without potential variable
name conflicts (spark.scheduler.blacklistTimeout implies a more general
black-list handling, which this is not unfortunately); IMO, this is a stop gap
solution until we add support for a better black list approach which handles
both executors and blocks.
But until we have that, this will atleast unblock us - thankfully, this is
not something which a lot of users are hitting (but is fairly common in our
case unfortunately).
Given this, should we expose this in documentation ?"
Seems like we should document this now if more folks are running into it.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
