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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # user >> More cores Vs More Nodes ?

Copy link to this message
RE: More cores Vs More Nodes ?

But having read the thread, I am going to have to say that this is definitely a silly question.
NOTE THE FOLLOWING: Silly questions are not a bad thing. I happen to ask them all the time. ;-)

Here's why I say its a silly question...

Hadoop is a cost effective solution when you build out 'commodity' servers.
Now here's the rub.
Commodity servers means something different to each person, and I don't want to get in to a debate on its definition.

When building out a cluster, too many people gloss over the complexity. 1U vs 2U in box size. Do you 1/2 MB or full size MB. How many disks per node. How much memory. Physical plant limitations. (Available rack space, costs if this is going in to a colo...) Power consumption, budget...

At a client, back in 2009, our first cluster was build on whatever hardware we could get. It was 5 blade servers w SCSI/SAS 2.5" disks where we split each blade so we could have 10 nodes. Yeah, it was a mistake and a royal pain. But we got the cluster up and could do some simple PoCs. But we then came up with our reference architecture for further PoCs and development.
We build out the DN w 8 core, 32GB, and 4 x 2TB 3.5" drives. Why? Because based on our constraints, this gave us the optimal  combination w price and performance. Note: We knew we would leave some performance on the table. It was a conscious decision to leave some performance on the table so that we could maximize the number of nodes to fit within out budget.

We chose 2TB drives because at the time they offered the best price/performance ratio. Today, that may be different.
We chose 32GB because at the time it was the sweet spot in memory prices. Today w 3 channel memory it looks like 36GB is the sweet spot. Of course YMMV. (It could be 48GB...)

Moving forward, I would reconsider the design because the price points on hardware has changed.

That's going to be your driving factor.

You want to look at 64 Core boxes, then you need 256GB of memory. Think of how many disks you have to add. (64-128 disks)
Now then ask yourself is this a commodity box?

Now price that box out.
Then price out how many 8 core 1U boxes you can buy.

Kind of puts it in to perspective, doesn't it? ;-)

The reason why I call this a 'silly question' is that you're attempting to look at your cluster by focusing on only one variable.
This is not to say that its a bad question because it forces you to realize that there are definitely lots of other options.  that you have to consider.



> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:25:17 -0600
> Subject: Re: More cores Vs More Nodes ?
> Hi Brad
> This is a really interesting experiment. I am curious why you did not use 2
> cores each machine but 32 nodes. That makes the number of CPU core in two
> groups equal.
> Chen
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Brad Sarsfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Prashant,
> >
> > In each case I had a single tasktracker per node. I oversubscribed the
> > total tasks per tasktracker/node by 1.5 x # of cores.
> >
> > So for the 64 core allocation comparison.
> >        In A: 8 cores; Each machine had a single tasktracker with 8 maps /
> > 4 reduce slots for 12 task slots total per machine x 8 machines (including
> > head node)
> >        In B: 2 c       ores; Each machine had a single tasktracker with 2
> > maps / 1 reduce slots for 3 slots total per machines x 29 machines
> > (including head node which was running 8 cores)
> >
> > The experiment was done in a cloud hosted environment running set of VMs.
> >
> > ~Brad
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prashant Kommireddi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: More cores Vs More Nodes ?
> >
> > Hi Brad, how many taskstrackers did you have on each node in both cases?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Prashant
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Brad Sarsfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: