Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
MapReduce >> mail # user >> Re: Why my tests shows Yarn is worse than MRv1 for terasort?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Why my tests shows Yarn is worse than MRv1 for terasort?
At the begining, I just want to do a fast comparision of MRv1 and Yarn. But
they have many differences, and to be fair for comparison I did not tune
their configurations at all.  So I got above test results. After analyzing
the test result, no doubt, I will configure them and do comparison again.

Do you have any idea on current test result? I think, to compare with MRv1,
Yarn is better on Map phase(teragen test), but worse on Reduce
phase(terasort test).
And any detailed suggestions/comments/materials on Yarn performance tunning?

Thanks!
2013/6/7 Marcos Luis Ortiz Valmaseda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Why not to tune the configurations?
> Both frameworks have many areas to tune:
> - Combiners, Shuffle optimization, Block size, etc
>
>
>
> 2013/6/6 sam liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Hi Experts,
>>
>> We are thinking about whether to use Yarn or not in the near future, and
>> I ran teragen/terasort on Yarn and MRv1 for comprison.
>>
>> My env is three nodes cluster, and each node has similar hardware: 2
>> cpu(4 core), 32 mem. Both Yarn and MRv1 cluster are set on the same env. To
>> be fair, I did not make any performance tuning on their configurations, but
>> use the default configuration values.
>>
>> Before testing, I think Yarn will be much better than MRv1, if they all
>> use default configuration, because Yarn is a better framework than MRv1.
>> However, the test result shows some differences:
>>
>> MRv1: Hadoop-1.1.1
>> Yarn: Hadoop-2.0.4
>>
>> (A) Teragen: generate 10 GB data:
>> - MRv1: 193 sec
>> - Yarn: 69 sec
>> *Yarn is 2.8 times better than MRv1*
>>
>> (B) Terasort: sort 10 GB data:
>> - MRv1: 451 sec
>> - Yarn: 1136 sec
>> *Yarn is 2.5 times worse than MRv1*
>>
>> After a fast analysis, I think the direct cause might be that Yarn is
>> much faster than MRv1 on Map phase, but much worse on Reduce phase.
>>
>> Here I have two questions:
>> *- Why my tests shows Yarn is worse than MRv1 for terasort?
>> *
>> *- What's the stratage for tuning Yarn performance? Is any materials?*
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Marcos Ortiz Valmaseda
> Product Manager at PDVSA
> http://about.me/marcosortiz
>
>
+
Sandy Ryza 2013-06-07, 06:53
+
Harsh J 2013-06-08, 15:09
+
sam liu 2013-06-09, 08:51
+
Harsh J 2013-06-09, 13:03
+
sam liu 2013-06-18, 08:58
+
Michel Segel 2013-06-18, 10:11
+
Sandy Ryza 2013-10-22, 23:45
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB