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

Switch to Threaded View
MapReduce >> mail # user >> Map Tasks do not obey data locality principle........

Copy link to this message
Re: Map Tasks do not obey data locality principle........
The scheduling is done based on block locations filled in by the input
splits. If there's no hints being provided by your FS, then the result
you're seeing is correct.

Note that if you don't use a block concept, you ought to consider a
whole file as one block and return a location based on that.

Essentially, your
form of API calls has to return valid values for scheduling to work.

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Agarwal, Nikhil
> No, it does not.  I have kept the granularity at file level rather than a block. I do not think that should affect the mapping of tasks ?
> Regards,
> Nikhil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harsh J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Map Tasks do not obey data locality principle........
> Also, does your custom FS report block locations in the exact same format as how HDFS does?
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Agarwal, Nikhil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I  have a 3-node cluster, with JobTracker running on one machine and
>> TaskTrackers on other two (say, slave1 and slave2). Instead of using
>> HDFS, I have written my own FileSystem implementation. Since, unlike
>> HDFS I am unable to provide a shared filesystem view to JobTrackers
>> and TaskTracker thus, I mounted the root container of slave2 on a
>> directory in slave1 (nfs mount). By doing this I am able to submit MR
>> job to JobTracker, with input path as my_scheme://slave1_IP:Port/dir1,
>> etc.  MR runs successfully but what happens is that data locality is
>> not ensured i.e. if files A,B,C are kept on
>> slave1 and D,E,F on slave2 then according to data locality, map tasks
>> should be submitted such that map task of A,B,C are submitted to
>> TaskTracker running on slave1 and D,E,F on slave2. Instead of this, it
>> randomly schedules the map task to any of the tasktrackers. If map
>> task of file A is submitted to TaskTracker running on slave2 then it
>> implies that file A is being fetched over the network by slave2.
>> How do I avoid this from happening?
>> Thanks,
>> Nikhil
> --
> Harsh J

Harsh J