There are some ways to replay java 8 streams e.g. mentioned here https://dzone.com/articles/how-to-replay-java-streams. Now what if i want to use log huge java stream (200-300mb) and pass it forward for replay. That should work right? But what if i dont want my JVM occupy that much RAM at any given point of time. Is that still possible and whats is the solution for that?
Related
Now I have a requirement that aggregate someone's operations in last 3 month. Then put result into ML model to get anomaly.
Taking into account the huge flow of the system, it's a very big window.
How can I deal with this scenario?
I will answer your question based on the assumption that the data is coming in a streaming fashion and you need to create a window on top of that stream because that detail is not clearly available from your question.
Having said that, you can create a window of such huge size with a RocksDB state backend as the window wouldn't be stored in memory and your window size restriction would depend only on the hard disk size of your hardware.
you can use batch processing for Flink as you have a dataset, however, flink is a true streaming engine, which means batch is considered as a special case for streaming. Another option will be to use Hadoop for this kind of batch processing.
I am running a Spark application in YARN-client mode with six executors (each four cores and executor memory = 6 GB and Overhead = 4 GB, Spark version: 1.6.3 / 2.1.0).
I find that my executor memory keeps increasing until getting killed by the node manager; and it gives out the information that tells me to boost spark.yarn.excutor.memoryOverhead.
I know that this parameter mainly control the size of memory allocated off-heap. But I don’t know when and how the Spark engine will use this part of memory. Also increasing that part of memory does not always solve my problem. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. It trends to be useless when the input data is large.
FYI, my application’s logic is quite simple. It means to combine the small files generated in one single day (one directory one day) into a single one and write back to HDFS. Here is the core code:
val df = spark.read.parquet(originpath)
.filter(s"m = ${ts.month} AND d = ${ts.day}")
.coalesce(400)
val dropDF = df.drop("hh").drop("mm").drop("mode").drop("y").drop("m").drop("d")
dropDF.repartition(1).write
.mode(SaveMode.ErrorIfExists)
.parquet(targetpath)
The source file may have hundreds to thousands level’s partition. And the total parquet file is around 1 to 5 GB.
Also I find that in the step that shuffle reading data from different machines, the size of shuffle read is about four times larger than the input size, Which is wired or some principle I don’t know.
Anyway, I have done some search myself for this problem. Some article said that it’s on the direct buffer memory (I don’t set myself).
Some article said that people solve it with more frequent full GC.
Also, I find one people on Stack Overflow with a very similar situation: Ever increasing physical memory for a Spark application in YARN
This guy claimed that it’s a bug with parquet, but a comment questioned him. People in this mail list may also receive an email hours ago from blondowski who described this problem while writing JSON: Executors - running out of memory
So it looks like to be common question for different output format.
I hope someone with experience about this problem could make an explanation about this issue. Why does this happen and what is a reliable way to solve this problem?
I just do some investigation in these days with my colleague. Here is my thought: from spark 1.2, we use Netty with off-heap memory to reduce GC during shuffle and cache block transfer. In my case, if I try to increase the memory overhead big enough. I will get the Max direct buffer exception. When Netty do block transferring, there will be five threads by default to grab the data chunk to target executor. In my situation, one single chunk is too big to fit into the buffer. So gc won’t help here. My final solution is to do another repartition before the repartition(1). Just to make 10x times more partitions than original’s. In this way, I can reduce the size of each chunk Netty transfer. In this way I finally make it.
Also I want to say that it’s not a good choice to repartition a big dataset into single file. This extremely unbalanced scenario is kind of waste your compute resources.
Welcome to any comment, I still don't understand this part well.
there are many files need to process with two computers real-timely,I want to distribute them to the two computers and these tasks need to be completed as soon as possibile(means real-time processing),I am thinking about the below plan:
(1) distributed queue like Gearman
(2）distributed computing platform like hadoop/spark/storm/s4 and so on
I have two questions
（1）what is the advantage and disadvantage between (1) and (2)?
（2) How to choose in (2),hadoop?spark?storm?s4?or other?
thanks!
Maybe I have not described the question clearly. In most case,there are 1000-3000 files with the same format , these files are independent,you do not need to care their order,the size of one file maybe tens to hundreds of KB and in the future, the number of files and size of single file will rise. I have wrote a program , it can process the file and pick up the data and then store the data in mongodb. Now there are only two computers, I just want a solution that can process these files with the program quickly（as soon as possibile） and is easy to extend and maintain
distributed queue is easy to use in my case bur maybe hard to extend and maintain , hadoop/spark is to "big" in the two computers but easy to extend and maintain, which is better, i am confused.
It depends a lot on the nature of your "processing". Some dimensions that apply here are:
Are records independent from each other or you need some form of aggregation? i.e: do you need some pieces of data to go together? Say, all transactions from a single user account.
Is you processing CPU bound? Memory bound? FileSystem bound?
What will be persisted? How will you persist it?
Whenever you see new data, do you need to recompute any of the old?
Can you discard data?
Is the data somewhat ordered?
What is the expected load?
A good solution will depend on answers to these (and possibly others I'm forgetting). For instance:
If computation is simple but storage and retrieval is the main concern, you should maybe look into a distributed DB rather than either of your choices.
It could be that you are best served by just logging things into a distributed filesystem like HDFS and then run batch computations with Spark (should be generally better than plain hadoop).
Maybe not, and you can use Spark Streaming to process as you receive the data.
If order and consistency are important, you might be better served by a publish/subscribe architecture, especially if your load could be more than what your two servers can handle, but there are peak and slow hours where your workers can catch up.
etc. So the answer to "how you choose?" is "by carefully looking at the constraints of your particular problem, estimate the load demands to your system and picking the solution that better matches those". All of these solutions and frameworks dominate the others, that's why they are all alive and kicking. The choice is all in the tradeoffs you are willing/able to make.
Hope it helps.
First of all, dannyhow is right - this is not what real-time processing is about. There is a great book http://www.manning.com/marz/ which says a lot about lambda archtecture.
The two ways you mentioned serves completly different purposes and are connected to the definition of word "task". For example, Spark will take a whole job you got for him and divide it into "tasks", but the outcome of one task is useless for you, you still need to wait for whole job to finish. You can create small jobs working on the same dataset and use spark's caching to speed it up. But then you won't get much advantage from distribution (if they have to be run one after another).
Are the files big? Are there connected somehow to each other? If yes, I'd go with Spark. If no, distributed queue.
I'm very new to cluster computing, and wanted to know more about the various software used for cluster computing, and which is best for particular tasks. In particular, the problem I am trying to solve involves a Manager/Workers type scenario, where a single Manager is responsible for the creation of 100s to 1000s of jobs. Each job, while relatively large, must execute on a small frame-by-frame basis. I.e. the Manager will tell each job, "advance one frame and report back to me". The execution of a single frame will be very small, so latency between the Manager and the worker machines must be very small, on the order of microseconds.
Thank you! Any information would be appreciated, even stuff that doesn't perfectly fit the scenario I described, just to give me a starting point. Some that I have researched so far are Hadoop, HTCondor, and Akka.
Since communication latency is important to you, you should probably consider using MPI. It's not too difficult to write simple Master/Worker programs using MPI, and it will probably give you the best performance, especially if your cluster has high performance networking, such as infiniband.
If, as it seems, you're using Java, you will have to do some research to determine a good Java/MPI package. You'll find some suggestions here: Java openmpi.
I am going to program a little application for check any bottlenecks which might be in my Windows systems. So that, I think to use Performance Monitor to collect data from Disk, memory, network and CPU counters and save these data in a file .csv
Now I am wondering: what is the best choice for collect data?
My idea is to collect anything in one file, with all data log of counters, every 15 seconds, becouse a shorter detection might loads uselessly the system.
At work I have used Performance Monitor by Hexagora (its freeware) - don't know if you can record the result however as I have only ever used the graphical representations.
I have also used the Windows Performance Monitor, outputting .csv files (as you are doing), but if you are collecting alot of data I find it very messy.
A guide for best practice when monitoring performance from Microsoft is here. I often use this as a guide, hope this is helpful.