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
Hadoop >> mail # user >> Why my tests shows Yarn is worse than MRv1 for terasort?


Copy link to this message
-
Why my tests shows Yarn is worse than MRv1 for terasort?
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!
+
sam liu 2013-06-07, 03:34
+
sam liu 2013-06-07, 05:21
+
Jian Fang 2013-10-22, 21:44
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