Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # user >> Heterogeneous cluster


+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2012-12-08, 03:32
+
Asaf Mesika 2012-12-09, 10:08
+
James Chang 2012-12-08, 15:17
+
Robert Dyer 2012-12-08, 18:38
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2012-12-08, 19:34
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Heterogeneous cluster
Take what I say with a grain of kosher salt. (Its what they put on your drink glasses because the grains are bigger. ;-)

I think what you are doing is cool hack, however in the bigger picture, you shouldn't have to do this with your load balancer. Also it doesn't matter if you think about ti.

With a heterogenous cluster, you will not share the same configuration across all machines in the cluster. You will change the number of slots per node based on its capacity.
That will limit what amount of work could be done on the same cluster.

You could also consider playing with the rack aware aspects of your cluster.
You could make all of your 2CPU machines in the same rack.

In theory... machine, rack , second rack is how the data is distributed. In theory if the 2CPU cores are neighbors, then the 2nd and or 3rd copy goes to another machine.

Trying to write a custom balancer, may be a good hack, but not good in terms of corporate life.

Just saying!

-Mike

On Dec 8, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It's not yet available anywhere. I will post it today or tomorrow,
> just the time to remove some hardcoding I did into it ;) It's a quick
> and dirty PerformanceBalancer. It's not a CPULoadBalencer.
>
> Anyway, I will give more details over the week-end, but there is
> absolutly nothing extraordinaire with it.
>
> JM
>
> 2012/12/8, Robert Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I too am interested in this custom load balancer, as I was actually just
>> starting to look into writing one that does the same thing for
>> my heterogeneous cluster!
>>
>> Is this available somewhere?
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM, James Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>     By the way, I saw you mentioned that you
>>> have built a "LoadBalancer", could you kindly
>>> share some detailed info about it?
>>>
>>> Jean-Marc Spaggiari 於 2012年12月8日星期六寫道:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Here is the situation.
>>>>
>>>> I have an heterogeneous cluster with 2 cores CPUs, 4 cores CPUs and 8
>>>> cores CPUs servers. The performances of those different servers allow
>>>> them to handle different size of load. So far, I built a LoadBalancer
>>>> which balance the regions over those servers based on the
>>>> performances. And it’s working quite well. The RowCounter went down
>>>> from 11 minutes to 6 minutes. However, I can still see that the tasks
>>>> are run on some servers accessing data on other servers, which
>>>> overwhelme the bandwidth and slow done the process since some 2 cores
>>>> servers are assigned to count some rows hosted on 8 cores servers.
>>>>
>>>> I’m looking for a way to “force” the tasks to run on the servers where
>>>> the regions are assigned.
>>>>
>>>> I first tried to reject the tasks on the Mapper setup method when the
>>>> data was not local to see if the tracker will assign it to another
>>>> server. No. It’s just failing and mostly not re-assigned. I tried
>>>> IOExceptions, RuntimeExceptions, InterruptionExceptions with no
>>>> success.
>>>>
>>>> So now I have 3 possible options.
>>>>
>>>> The first one is to move from the MapReduce to the Coprocessor
>>>> EndPoint. Running locally on the RegionServer, it’s accessing only the
>>>> local data and I can manually reject all what is not local. Therefor
>>>> it’s achieving my needs, but it’s not my preferred options since I
>>>> would like to keep the MR features.
>>>>
>>>> The second option is to tell Hadoop where the tasks should be
>>>> assigned. Should that be done by HBase? By Hadoop? I don’t know.
>>>> Where? I don’t know either. I have started to look at JobTracker and
>>>> JobInProgress code but it seems it will be a big task. Also, doing
>>>> that will mean I will have to re-patch the distributed code each time
>>>> I’m upgrading the version, and I will have to redo everything when I
>>>> will move from 1.0.x to 2.x…
>>>>
>>>> Third option is to not process the task if the data is not local. I
>>>> mean, on the map method, simply have a if (!local) return; right from
+
Robert Dyer 2012-12-08, 23:50
+
Michael Segel 2012-12-09, 08:27
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2012-12-10, 14:03
+
Anoop Sam John 2012-12-11, 04:04
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2012-12-11, 18:48
+
Harsh J 2012-12-11, 20:20
+
Anoop Sam John 2012-12-12, 03:54
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2012-12-09, 02:36