I have a spark cluster (DataProc) with a master and 4 workers (2 preemtible), in my code I have some thing like this:
JavaRDD<Signal> rdd_data = javaSparkContext.parallelize(myArray);
rdd_data.foreachPartition(partitionOfRecords -> {
while (partitionOfRecords.hasNext()) {
MyData d = partitionOfRecords.next();
LOG.info("my data: " + d.getId().toString());
}
})
myArray is composed by 1200 MyData objects.
I don't understand why spark uses only 2 cores, divide my array into 2 partitions, and doesn't use 16 cores.
I need to set the number of partition?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Generally it's always a good idea to specific the number of partitions as the second argument to parallelize since the optimal slicing of your dataset should really be independent from the particular shape of the cluster you're using, and Spark can at best use current sizes of executors as a "hint".
What you're seeing here is that Spark will default to asking taskScheduler for current number of executor cores to use as the defaultParallelism, combined with the fact that in Dataproc Spark dynamic allocation is enabled. Dynamic allocation is important because otherwise a single job submitted to a cluster might just specify max executors even if it sits idle and then it will prevent other jobs from being able to use those idle resources.
So on Dataproc, if you're using default n1-standard-4, Dataproc configures 2 executors per machine and gives each executor 2 cores. The value of spark.dynamicAllocation.minExecutors should be 1, so your default job, upon startup without doing any work, would sit on 1 executor with 2 cores. Then taskScheduler will report that 2 cores are currently reserved in total, and therefore defaultParallelism will be 2.
If you had a large cluster and you were already running a job for awhile (say, you have a map phase that runs for longer than 60 seconds) you'd expect dynamic allocation to have taken all available resources, so the next step of the job that uses defaultParallelism would then presumably be 16, which is the total cores on your cluster (or possibly 14, if 2 are consumed by an appmaster).
In practice, you probably want to parallelize into a larger number of partitions than total cores available anyways. Then if there's any skew in how long each element takes to process, you can have nice balancing where fast tasks finish and then those executors can start taking on new partitions while the slow ones are still running, instead of always having to wait for a single slowest partition to finish. It's common to choose a number of partitions anywhere from 2x the number of available cores to something 100x or more.
Here's another related StackOverflow question: spark.default.parallelism for Parallelize RDD defaults to 2 for spark submit
Related
I have 1 master node and 4 worker nodes. I set up the cluster using Ambari and all monitoring metrics are collected from its dashboard. Spark on the top of Hadoop, so I have got YARN and HDFS. I run a very simple word count script and found that one of the worker nodes did the most job. The word count job is divided into 149 tasks. 98 tasks are done by one node.
Here is my code for counting words
val file = sc.textFile("/data/2gdata.txt") //read file from HDFS
val counts = file.flatMap(line => line.split(" ")).map(word => (word, 1)).reduceByKey(_ + _)
counts.collect*
This picture illustrates the events timeline and CPU usage for each worder nodes
Aggregated Metrics by Executor are shown here
Each task has same size of input file. I assume they would spend similar time such as around 30 seconds to count word in the piece of input file. Some tasks spent more than 10 minutes.
I realized those nodes doing less job cost more CPU for system operation as shown in blue area in the first graph. The worker did more tasks and cost more CPU for user (application).
I am wondering what kinds of system operations required for a Spark application. Why three of worker nodes cost more CPU for system? I also enabled spark.speculation, but those stragglers will be killed after 10 minutes and performance didn't get better. Moreover, those stragglers are node_local, so I assume this issue is not related to HDFS replication. (There are 3 replications under the rack.)
Thank you very much.
Even the input file size is same for each task, during the shuffle and reduce phase, some task might process more data than other tasks, data skewing may cause more CPU costs.
You can repartitioning the data in between may improve the performance.
Assume that 8GB memory is available with a node in hadoop system.
If the task tracker and data nodes consume 2GB and if the memory required for each task is 200MB, how many map and reduce can get started?
8-2 = 6GB
So, 6144MB/200MB = 30.72
So, 30 total map and reduce tasks will be started.
Am I right or am I missing something?
The number of mappers and reducers is not determined by the resources available. You have to set the number of reducers in your code by calling setNumReduceTasks().
For the number of mappers, it is more complicated, as they are set by Hadoop. By default, there is roughly one map task per input split. You can tweak that by changing the default block size, record reader, number of input files.
You should also set in the hadoop configuration files the maximum number of map tasks and reduce tasks that run concurrently, as well as the memory allocated to each task. Those last two configurations are the ones that are based on the available resources. Keep in mind that map and reduce tasks run on your CPU, so you are practically restricted by the number of available cores (one core cannot run two tasks at the same time).
This guide may help you with more details.
The number of concurrent task is not decided just based on the memory available on a node. it depends on the number of cores as well. If your node has 8 vcores and each of your task takes 1 core then at a time only 8 task can run.
I'm having a MR job in which shuffle phase lasts too long.
At first I thought that it is because I'm emitting a lot of data from Mapper (around 5GB). Then I fixed that problem by adding a Combiner, thus emitting less data to Reducer. After that shuffle period did not shorten, as I thought it would.
My next idea was to eliminate Combiner, by combining in Mapper itself. That idea I got from here, where it says that data needs to be serialized/deserialized to use Combiner. Unfortunately shuffle phase is still the same.
My only thought is that it can be because I'm using a single Reducer. But this shouldn't be a case since I'm not emitting a lot of data when using Combiner or combining in Mapper.
Here are my stats:
Here are all the counters for my Hadoop (YARN) job:
I should also add that this is run on a small cluster of 4 machines. Each has 8GB of RAM (2GB reserved) and number of virtual cores is 12 (2 reserved).
These are virtual machines. At first they were all on a single unit, but then I separated them 2-2 on two units. So they were sharing HDD at first, now there are two machines per disk. Between them is a gigabit network.
And here are more stats:
Whole memory is occupied
CPU is constantly under pressure while the job is run (the picture shows CPU for two consecutive runs of same job)
My question is - why is shuffle time so big and how to fix it? I also don't understand how there was no speedup even though I have dramatically reduced the amount of data emitted from Mapper?
Few observations :
For a job of 30 mins, the GC time is too high (Try reusing objects rather creating a new one for each call in map()/Reduce() method)
Average map time is TOOOOO hight , 16 mins what are you doing in ur map ?
YARN memory is 99% , this signifies you are running too many services on your HDP cluster and RAM is not sufficient to support those many services.
Please increse YAN container memory, please give at least 1 GB.
This looks like a GC + overscheduled cluster problem
I want to ask. Why if I configured on mapred-site.xml in mapreduce.map/reduce.memory.mb and mapreduce.map/reduce.java.opts to bigger value than default value make my job slower?
But If I configured it too low, then I'll get task failed. And I think on this condition, my memory configuration on hadoop is not necessary...
Can you give me an explanation?
What might be happening in your environment is, when you increase values of the mapreduce.map/reduce.memory.mb and mapreduce.map/reduce.java.opts configurations to upper bound, it actually reduces the number of containers allowed to execute Map/Reduce task in every node thus eventually causes the slowness in the over all job time.
If you have 2 nodes, each with 25 GB of free ram , and say you configured the mapreduce.map/reduce.memory.mb as 4 GB, then you might get atleast 6 containers on every node, totally it is 12. So you would get a chance of running 12 mapper/reducer tasks in parallel.
In case if you configure mapreduce.map/reduce.memory.mb as 10 GB , then you might get only 2 containers on every node , totally it would be 4 containers to execute your mapper/reducer tasks in parallel. So the mapper/reducer tasks would mostly run in sequence due to lack of free containers, thus causes a delay in the over all job completion time.
You should justify the approprite value for the configuration with considering the resources available and the amount of resources required for the Map/Reduce containers according to your environment. Hope this makes sense.
you can allocate memory for map/reduce containers based on two factors
available memory per each Datanode
total number of cores(vcores) you have.
try to create number of containers equivalent to number of cores you have in each detained. ( including hyper threading)
for example if you have 10 physical core ( 20 cores including hyper threading)
so total number containers you can plan is 19 ( leaving 1 core for other processes)
assume that you have 'X' GB Ram in each data node, then
leave some memory(assume Y GB) for other processes (heap) like, Datanode, Node Manager,Region server ,etc
Now memory available for YARN is X -Y = Z
Memory for Map container = Y/number of containers per node
Memory for Reduce container = Y/(2 * number of containers per node)
I have a Cloudera Hadoop cluster and I'm doing some benchmarks running Terasort but I'm getting very unstable results from 105 - 150 minutes. Some times I've seen it was replicating more than usual or doing a lot of garbage collections but some other times they were pretty much the same.
I don't know the reason of the unstable results, any hint or recommendation will be very welcome :)
I run the benchmarks as follows:
I've chosen the number of maps and reduces tasks following this guide http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowManyMapsAndReduces
Speculative maps and reduce execution is off.
Generating dataset:
10,000,000,000 rows of 100 bytes ~= 953674 M
Block size = 128 MB
Number of maps tasks = 3725 (number-of-rows * row-size) / (block-size*2) I do times 2 because the maps tasks time was too low, like 7 seconds.
sudo -u hdfs hadoop jar /usr/lib/hadoop-0.20-mapreduce/hadoop-examples.jar teragen -Ddfs.replication=3 -Dmapred.map.tasks=3725 10000000000 /terasort-in
Running terasort:
num-of-worker-nodes = 4
num-of-cores-per-node = 8
Reduce tasks = 56 ( 1.75 * num-of-worker-nodes * num-of-cores-per-node )
sudo -u hdfs hadoop jar /usr/lib/hadoop-0.20-mapreduce/hadoop-examples.jar terasort -Ddfs.replication=1 -Dmapred.reduce.tasks=56 /terasort-in /terasort-out
The service and role distribution among nodes is as follows:
6 Nodes - 8 cores, 16 GB RAM and 2 HD each - running just HDFS and MapReduce:
1st node, just master roles:
Namenode.
Cloudera management services.
2nd node, just master roles:
JobTracker.
SecondaryNamenode.
3rd to 6th nodes, just worker roles:
TaskTracker.
Datanode.
I use the 2nd node as client because is the one with the lowest load.
Please tell me if you need any configuration property value or detail.
Update: After Chris White's answer I've tried to reduce the number of pollings between the jobtracker and tasktrackers by having just 1 worker and very few maps and reduces, now the benchmarks are pretty stable :)
There are many factors that you need to take into consideration when looking at performance:
This could be a polling problem combined with the small number of processing slots you have available.
The Task Trackers poll the running tasks periodically to determine if they have finished, and the Job Tracker also polls the Task Trackers. With your ~3700 map tasks (if i've read your question correctly), if there was say a ~1 second difference in polling times, then this could account for the ~hour you are seeing in timing differences.
If you have a larger cluster with more processing slots, i imagine this number would become more stable, but no MR job will every have a constant running time, there are too many polling and other external timings (JVM start up time for example) that can adjust the overall runtime.
What was the data locality counters say for both jobs? If one job had considerably more data lock tasks than another then i would expect it to run fast too.