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

Switch to Threaded View
Pig >> mail # user >> PigServer memory leak

Copy link to this message
Re: PigServer memory leak
[Low Memory Detector] [INFO] SpillableMemoryManager.java:143 low memory
handler called

Are you seeing this warning on client side, in pig logs? If so, then
are you sure your job is actually running on real hadoop cluster.
Because these logs should appear in task-tracker logs not in client
logs. This may imply that you job is getting executed locally in local
mode and not actually submitted to cluster. Look for the very first
lines in the client logs, where Pig tries to connect to the cluster.
See, if its successful in doing so.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:15, Ashutosh Chauhan
> Posting for Bill.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bill Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:11
> Subject: Re: PigServer memory leak
> Thanks for the reply, Ashutosh.
> [hadoop.apache.org keeps flagging my reply as spam, so I'm replying
> directly to you. Feel free to push this conversation back onto the
> list, if you can. :)]
> I'm running the same two scripts, one after the other, every 5
> minutes. The scripts have dynamic tokens substituted to change the
> input and output directories. Besides that, they have the same logic.
> I will try to execute the script from grunt next time it happens, but
> I don't see how a lack of pig MR optimizations could cause a memory
> issue on the client? If I bounce my daemon, the next jobs to run
> executes without a problem upon start, so I would also expect a script
> run through grunt at that time to run without a problem as well.
> I reverted back to re-initializing PigServer for every run. I have
> other places in my scheduled workflow where I interact with HDFS which
> I've now modified to re-use an instance of Hadoop's Configuration
> object for the life of the VM. I was re-initializing that many times
> per run. Looking at the Configuration code it seems to re-parse the
> XML configs into a DOM every time it's called, so this certainly looks
> like a place for a potential leak. If nothing else it should give me
> an optimization. Configuration seems to be stateless and read-only
> after initiation so this seems safe.
> Anyway, here are my two scripts. The first generates summaries, the
> second makes a report from the summaries and they run in separate
> PigServer instances via registerQuery(..). Let me know if you see
> anything that seems off:
> define chukwaLoader org.apache.hadoop.chukwa.
> ChukwaStorage();
> define tokenize     com.foo.hadoop.mapreduce.pig.udf.TOKENIZE();
> define regexMatch   com.foo.hadoop.mapreduce.pig.udf.REGEX_MATCH();
> define timePeriod   org.apache.hadoop.chukwa.TimePartition('@TIME_PERIOD@');
>     USING chukwaLoader AS (ts: long, fields);
> bodies = FOREACH raw GENERATE tokenize((chararray)fields#'body') as
> tokens, timePeriod(ts) as time;
> -- pull values out of the URL
> tokens1 = FOREACH bodies GENERATE
>       (int)regexMatch($0.token4, '(?:[?&])ptId=([^&]*)', 1) as pageTypeId,
>       (int)regexMatch($0.token4, '(?:[?&])sId=([^&]*)', 1) as siteId,
>       (int)regexMatch($0.token4, '(?:[?&])aId=([^&]*)', 1) as assetId, time,
>       regexMatch($0.token4, '(?:[?&])tag=([^&]*)', 1) as tagValue;
> -- filter out entries without an assetId
> tokens2 = FILTER tokens1 BY
>     (assetId is not null) AND (pageTypeId is not null) AND (siteId is not null);
> -- group by tagValue, time, assetId and flatten to get counts
> grouped = GROUP tokens2 BY (tagValue, time, assetId, pageTypeId, siteId);
> flattened = FOREACH grouped GENERATE
>     FLATTEN(group) as (tagValue, time, assetId, pageTypeId, siteId),
> COUNT(tokens2) as count;
> shifted = FOREACH flattened GENERATE time, count, assetId, pageTypeId,
> siteId, tagValue;
> -- order and store
> ordered = ORDER shifted BY tagValue ASC, count DESC, assetId DESC,
> pageTypeId ASC, siteId ASC, time DESC;