I'm investigating the performances of a Flink job that transports data from Kafka to an S3 Sink.
We are using a BucketingSink to write parquet files. The bucketing logic divides the messages having a folder per type of data, tenant (customer), date-time, extraction Id, etc etc. This results in each file is stored in a folder structure composed by 9-10 layers (s3_bucket:/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/myFile...)
If the data is distributed as bursts of messages for tenant-type we see good performances in writing, but when the data is more a white noise distribution on thousands of tenants, dozens of data types and multiple extraction IDs, we have an incredible loss of performances. (in the order of 300x times)
Attaching a debugger, it seems the issue is connected to the number of handlers open at the same time on S3 to write data. More specifically:
Researching in the hadoop libraries used to write to S3 I have found some possible improvements setting:
<name>fs.s3a.connection.maximum</name>
<name>fs.s3a.threads.max</name>
<name>fs.s3a.threads.core</name>
<name>fs.s3a.max.total.tasks</name>
But none of these made a big difference in throughput.
I also tried to flatten the folder structure to write to a single key like (1_2_3_...) but also this didn't bring any improvement.
Note: The tests have been done on Flink 1.8 with the Hadoop FileSystem (BucketingSink), writing to S3 using the hadoop fs libraries 2.6.x (as we use Cloudera CDH 5.x for savepoints), so we can't switch to StreamingFileSink.
After the suggestion from Kostas in https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/50ef4d26a1af408df8d9abb70589699cb6b26b2600ab6f4464e86ea4%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E
The culprit of the slow-down is this piece of code:
https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-connectors/flink-connector-filesystem/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/fs/bucketing/BucketingSink.java#L543-L551
This alone takes around 4-5 secs, with a total of 6 secs to open the file. Logs from an instrumented call:
2020-02-07 08:51:05,825 INFO BucketingSink - openNewPartFile FS verification
2020-02-07 08:51:09,906 INFO BucketingSink - openNewPartFile FS verification - done
2020-02-07 08:51:11,181 INFO BucketingSink - openNewPartFile FS - completed partPath = s3a://....
This together with the default setup of the bucketing sink with 60 secs inactivity rollover
https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-connectors/flink-connector-filesystem/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/fs/bucketing/BucketingSink.java#L195
means that with more than 10 parallel bucket on a slot by the time we finish creating the last bucket the first one became stale, so needs to be rotated generating a blocking situation.
We solved this by replacing the BucketingSink.java and deleting the FS check mentioned above:
LOG.debug("Opening new part file FS verification");
if (!fs.exists(bucketPath)) {
try {
if (fs.mkdirs(bucketPath)) {
LOG.debug("Created new bucket directory: {}", bucketPath);
}
}
catch (IOException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Could not create new bucket path.", e);
}
}
LOG.debug("Opening new part file FS verification - done");
as we see that the sink works fine without it, now the file opening takes ~1.2sec.
Moreover we set the default inactive threshold to 5 mins. With this changes we can easily handle more than 200 buckets per slot (once the job takes speed it will ingest on all the slots so postponing the inactive timeout)
Related
I have multiple queries running on the same spark structured streaming session.
The queries are writing parquet records to Google Bucket and checkpoint to Google Bucket.
val query1 = df1
.select(col("key").cast("string"),from_json(col("value").cast("string"), schema, Map.empty[String, String]).as("data"))
.select("key","data.*")
.writeStream.format("parquet").option("path", path).outputMode("append")
.option("checkpointLocation", checkpoint_dir1)
.partitionBy("key")/*.trigger(Trigger.ProcessingTime("5 seconds"))*/
.queryName("query1").start()
val query2 = df2.select(col("key").cast("string"),from_json(col("value").cast("string"), schema, Map.empty[String, String]).as("data"))
.select("key","data.*")
.writeStream.format("parquet").option("path", path).outputMode("append")
.option("checkpointLocation", checkpoint_dir2)
.partitionBy("key")/*.trigger(Trigger.ProcessingTime("5 seconds"))*/
.queryName("query2").start()
Problem: Sometimes job fails with ava.lang.IllegalStateException: Race while writing batch 4
Logs:
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Race while writing batch 4
at org.apache.spark.sql.execution.streaming.ManifestFileCommitProtocol.commitJob(ManifestFileCommitProtocol.scala:67)
at org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.FileFormatWriter$.write(FileFormatWriter.scala:187)
... 20 more
20/07/24 19:40:15 INFO SparkContext: Invoking stop() from shutdown hook
This error is because there are two writers writing to the output path. The file streaming sink doesn't support multiple writers. It assumes there is only one writer writing to the path. Each query needs to use its own output directory.
Hence, in order to fix this, you can make each query use its own output directory. When reading back the data, you can load each output directory and union them.
You can also use a streaming sink that supports multiple concurrent writers, such as the Delta Lake library. It's also supported by Google Cloud: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/getting-started-with-new-table-formats-on-dataproc . This link has instructions about how to use Delta Lake on Google Cloud. It doesn't mention the streaming case, but what you need to do is changing format("parquet") to format("delta") in your codes.
I'm trying to write the result of multiple operations into an AWS Aurora PostgreSQL cluster. All the calculations performs right but, when I try to write the result into the database I get the next error:
py4j.protocol.Py4JJavaError: An error occurred while calling o12179.jdbc.
: java.lang.StackOverflowError
at org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.trees.TreeNode$$anonfun$2.apply(TreeNode.scala:256)
at org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.trees.TreeNode$$anonfun$2.apply(TreeNode.scala:256)
at org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.trees.CurrentOrigin$.withOrigin(TreeNode.scala:70)
at org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.trees.TreeNode.transformDown(TreeNode.scala:255)
I already tried to increase cluster size (15 r4.2xlarge machines), change number of partitions for the data to 120 partitions, change executor and driver memory to 4Gb each and I'm facing the same results.
The current SparkSession configuration is the next:
spark = pyspark.sql.SparkSession\
.builder\
.appName("profile")\
.config("spark.sql.shuffle.partitions", 120)\
.config("spark.executor.memory", "4g").config("spark.driver.memory", "4g")\
.getOrCreate()
I don't know if is a Spark configuration problem or if it's a programming problem.
Finally I found the problem.
The problem was an iterative read from S3 creating a really big DAG. I changed the way I read CSV files from S3 with the following instruction.
df = spark.read\
.format('csv')\
.option('header', 'true')\
.option('delimiter', ';')\
.option('mode', 'DROPMALFORMED')\
.option('inferSchema', 'true')\
.load(list_paths)
Where list_paths is a precalculated list of paths to S3 objects.
I am using Flume to store sensor data in HDFS. Once the data is received through MQTT. The subscriber posts the data in JSON format to Flume HTTP listener. It is currently working fine, but the problem is that flume is not writing to HDFS file till I stop it (or the size of the file reachs 128MB). I am using Hive to apply a schema on read. Unfortunately, the resulting hive table contains only 1 entry. This is normal because Flume did not write new coming data to file (loaded by Hive).
Is there any manner to force Flume to write new coming data to HDFS in a near-real time way? So, I don't need to restart it or to use small files?
here is my flume configuration:
# Name the components on this agent
emsFlumeAgent.sources = http_emsFlumeAgent
emsFlumeAgent.sinks = hdfs_sink
emsFlumeAgent.channels = channel_hdfs
# Describe/configure the source
emsFlumeAgent.sources.http_emsFlumeAgent.type = http
emsFlumeAgent.sources.http_emsFlumeAgent.bind = localhost
emsFlumeAgent.sources.http_emsFlumeAgent.port = 41414
# Describe the sink
emsFlumeAgent.sinks.hdfs_sink.type = hdfs
emsFlumeAgent.sinks.hdfs_sink.hdfs.path = hdfs://localhost:9000/EMS/%{sensor}
emsFlumeAgent.sinks.hdfs_sink.hdfs.rollInterval = 0
emsFlumeAgent.sinks.hdfs_sink.hdfs.rollSize = 134217728
emsFlumeAgent.sinks.hdfs_sink.hdfs.rollCount=0
#emsFlumeAgent.sinks.hdfs_sink.hdfs.idleTimeout=20
# Use a channel which buffers events in memory
emsFlumeAgent.channels.channel_hdfs.type = memory
emsFlumeAgent.channels.channel_hdfs.capacity = 10000
emsFlumeAgent.channels.channel_hdfs.transactionCapacity = 100
# Bind the source and sinks to the channel
emsFlumeAgent.sources.http_emsFlumeAgent.channels = channel_hdfs
emsFlumeAgent.sinks.hdfs_sink.channel = channel_hdfs
I think the tricky bit here is that you would like to write data to HDFS in near real time but don't want small files either (for obvious reasons) and this could be a difficult thing to a achieve.
You'll need to find optimal balance between the following two parameters:
hdfs.rollSize (Default = 1024) - File size to trigger roll, in bytes (0: never roll based on file size)
and
hdfs.batchSize (Default = 100) - Number of events written to file before it is flushed to HDFS
If your data is not likely to reach 128 MB in the preferred time duration, then you may need to reduce the rollSize but only to an extent that you don't run into the small files problem.
Since, you have not set any batch size in your HDFS sink, you should see the results of HDFS flush after every 100 records but once the size of the flushed records jointly reaches 128 MB, the contents would be rolled up in a 128 MB file. Is this also not happening? Could you please confirm?
Hope this helps!
My spark application process the files (average size is 20 MB) with custom hadoop input format and stores the result in HDFS.
Following is the code snippet.
Configuration conf = new Configuration();
JavaPairRDD<Text, Text> baseRDD = ctx
.newAPIHadoopFile(input, CustomInputFormat.class,Text.class, Text.class, conf);
JavaRDD<myClass> mapPartitionsRDD = baseRDD
.mapPartitions(new FlatMapFunction<Iterator<Tuple2<Text, Text>>, myClass>() {
//my logic goes here
}
//few more translformations
result.saveAsTextFile(path);
This application creates 1 task/ partition per file and processes and stores the corresponding part file in HDFS.
i.e, For 10,000 input files 10,000 tasks are created and 10,000 part files are stored in HDFS.
Both mapPartitions and map operations on baseRDD are creating 1 task per file.
SO question
How to set the number of partitions for newAPIHadoopFile?
suggests to set
conf.setInt("mapred.max.split.size", 4); for configuring no of partitions.
But when this parameter is set CPU is utilized at maximum and none of the stage is not started even after long time.
If I don't set this parameter then application will be completed successfully as mentioned above.
How to set number of partitions with newAPIHadoopFile and increase the efficiency?
What happens with mapred.max.split.size option?
============
update:
What happens with mapred.max.split.size option?
In my use case file size is small and changing the split size options are irrelevant here.
more info on this SO: Behavior of the parameter "mapred.min.split.size" in HDFS
Just use baseRDD.repartition(<a sane amount>).mapPartitions(...). That will move the resulting operation to fewer partitions, especially if your files are small.
I'm currently writing a Scala application made of a Producer and a Consumer. The Producers get some data from and external source and writes em inside Kafka. The Consumer reads from Kafka and writes to Elasticsearch.
The consumer is based on Spark Streaming and every 5 seconds fetches new messages from Kafka and writes them to ElasticSearch. The problem is I'm not able to write to ES because I get a lot of errors like the one below :
ERROR] [2015-04-24 11:21:14,734] [org.apache.spark.TaskContextImpl]:
Error in TaskCompletionListener
org.elasticsearch.hadoop.EsHadoopException: Could not write all
entries [3/26560] (maybe ES was overloaded?). Bailing out... at
org.elasticsearch.hadoop.rest.RestRepository.flush(RestRepository.java:225)
~[elasticsearch-spark_2.10-2.1.0.Beta3.jar:2.1.0.Beta3] at
org.elasticsearch.hadoop.rest.RestRepository.close(RestRepository.java:236)
~[elasticsearch-spark_2.10-2.1.0.Beta3.jar:2.1.0.Beta3] at
org.elasticsearch.hadoop.rest.RestService$PartitionWriter.close(RestService.java:125)
~[elasticsearch-spark_2.10-2.1.0.Beta3.jar:2.1.0.Beta3] at
org.elasticsearch.spark.rdd.EsRDDWriter$$anonfun$write$1.apply$mcV$sp(EsRDDWriter.scala:33)
~[elasticsearch-spark_2.10-2.1.0.Beta3.jar:2.1.0.Beta3] at
org.apache.spark.TaskContextImpl$$anon$2.onTaskCompletion(TaskContextImpl.scala:57)
~[spark-core_2.10-1.2.1.jar:1.2.1] at
org.apache.spark.TaskContextImpl$$anonfun$markTaskCompleted$1.apply(TaskContextImpl.scala:68)
[spark-core_2.10-1.2.1.jar:1.2.1] at
org.apache.spark.TaskContextImpl$$anonfun$markTaskCompleted$1.apply(TaskContextImpl.scala:66)
[spark-core_2.10-1.2.1.jar:1.2.1] at
scala.collection.mutable.ResizableArray$class.foreach(ResizableArray.scala:59)
[na:na] at
scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer.foreach(ArrayBuffer.scala:47)
[na:na] at
org.apache.spark.TaskContextImpl.markTaskCompleted(TaskContextImpl.scala:66)
[spark-core_2.10-1.2.1.jar:1.2.1] at
org.apache.spark.scheduler.Task.run(Task.scala:58)
[spark-core_2.10-1.2.1.jar:1.2.1] at
org.apache.spark.executor.Executor$TaskRunner.run(Executor.scala:200)
[spark-core_2.10-1.2.1.jar:1.2.1] at
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
[na:1.7.0_65] at
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
[na:1.7.0_65] at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745) [na:1.7.0_65]
Consider that the producer is writing 6 messages every 15 seconds so I really don't understand how this "overload" can possibly happen (I even cleaned the topic and flushed all old messages, I thought it was related to an offset issue). The task executed by Spark Streaming every 5 seconds can be summarized by the following code :
val result = KafkaUtils.createStream[String, Array[Byte], StringDecoder, DefaultDecoder](ssc, kafkaParams, Map("wasp.raw" -> 1), StorageLevel.MEMORY_ONLY_SER_2)
val convertedResult = result.map(k => (k._1 ,AvroToJsonUtil.avroToJson(k._2)))
//TO-DO : Remove resource (yahoo/yahoo) hardcoded parameter
log.info(s"*** EXECUTING SPARK STREAMING TASK + ${java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis()}***")
convertedResult.foreachRDD(rdd => {
rdd.map(data => data._2).saveToEs("yahoo/yahoo", Map("es.input.json" -> "true"))
})
If I try to print the messages instead of sending to ES, everything is fine and I actually see only 6 messages. Why can't I write to ES?
For the sake of completeness, I'm using this library to write to ES : elasticsearch-spark_2.10 with the latest beta version.
I found, after many retries, a way to write to ElasticSearch without getting any error. Basically passing the parameter "es.batch.size.entries" -> "1" to the saveToES method solved the problem. I don't understand why using the default or any other batch size leads to the aforementioned error considering that I would expect an error message if I'm trying to write more stuff than the allowed max batch size, not less.
Moreover I've noticed that actually I was writing to ES but not all my messages, I was losing between 1 and 3 messages per batch.
When I pushed dataframe to ES on Spark, I had the same error message. Even with "es.batch.size.entries" -> "1" configuration,I had the same error.
Once I increased thread pool in ES, I could figure out this issue.
for example,
Bulk pool
threadpool.bulk.type: fixed
threadpool.bulk.size: 600
threadpool.bulk.queue_size: 30000
Like it was already mentioned here, this is a document write conflict.
Your convertedResult data stream contains multiple records with the same id. When written to elastic as part of the same batch produces the error above.
Possible solutions:
Generate unique id for each record. Depending on your use case it can be done in a few different ways. As example, one common solution is to create a new field by combining the id and lastModifiedDate fields and use that field as id when writing to elastic.
Perform de-duplication of records based on id - select only one record with particular id and discard other duplicates. Depending on your use case, this could be the most current record (based on time stamp field), most complete (most of the fields contain data), etc.
The #1 solution will store all records that you receive in the stream.
The #2 solution will store only the unique records for a specific id based on your de-duplication logic. This result would be the same as setting "es.batch.size.entries" -> "1", except you will not limit the performance by writing one record at a time.
One of the possibility is the cluster/shard status being RED. Please address this issue which may be due to unassigned replicas. Once status turned GREEN the API call succeeded just fine.
This is a document write conflict.
For example:
Multiple documents specify the same _id for Elasticsearch to use.
These documents are located in different partitions.
Spark writes multiple partitions to ES simultaneously.
Result is Elasticsearch receiving multiple updates for a single Document at once - from multiple sources / through multiple nodes / containing different data
"I was losing between 1 and 3 messages per batch."
Fluctuating number of failures when batch size > 1
Success if batch write size "1"
Just adding another potential reason for this error, hopefully it helps someone.
If your Elasticsearch index has child documents then:
if you are using a custom routing field (not _id), then according to
the documentation the uniqueness of the documents is not guaranteed.
This might cause issues while updating from spark.
If you are using the standard _id, the uniqueness will be preserved, however you need to make sure the following options are provided while writing from Spark to Elasticsearch:
es.mapping.join
es.mapping.routing