Jane Wayne 2012-04-03, 08:38
Bejoy Ks 2012-04-03, 11:48
Jane Wayne 2012-04-04, 03:11
Serge Blazhievsky 2012-04-04, 17:17
-Re: how to fine tuning my map reduce job that is generating a lot of intermediate key-value pairs (a lot of I/O operations)
serge, i specify 15 instances, but only 14 end up being data/tasks
nodes. 1 instance is reserved as the name node (job tracker).
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Serge Blazhievsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many datanodes do you use fir your job?
> On 4/3/12 8:11 PM, "Jane Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>i don't have the option of setting the map heap size to 2 GB since my
>>real environment is AWS EMR and the constraints are set.
>>link is where i am currently reading on the meaning of io.sort.factor
>>it seems io.sort.mb tunes the map tasks and io.sort.factor tunes the
>>shuffle/reduce task. am i correct to say then that io.sort.factor is
>>not relevant here (yet, anways)? since i don't really make it to the
>>reduce phase (except for only a very small data size).
>>in that link above, here is the description for, io.sort.mb: The
>>cumulative size of the serialization and accounting buffers storing
>>records emitted from the map, in megabytes. there's a paragraph above
>>the table that is value is simply the threshold that triggers a sort
>>and spill to the disk. furthermore, it says, "If either buffer fills
>>completely while the spill is in progress, the map thread will block,"
>>which is what i believe is happening in my case.
>>this sentence concerns me, "Minimizing the number of spills to disk
>>can decrease map time, but a larger buffer also decreases the memory
>>available to the mapper." to minimize the number of spills, you need a
>>larger buffer; however, this statement seems to suggest to NOT
>>minimize the number of spills; a) you will not decrease map time, b)
>>you will not decrease the memory available to the mapper. so, in your
>>advice below, you say to increase, but i may actually want to decrease
>>the value for io.sort.mb. (if i understood the documentation
>>it seems these three map tuning parameters, io.sort.mb,
>>io.sort.record.percent, and io.sort.spill.percent are a pain-point
>>trading off between speed and memory. to me, if you set them high,
>>more serialized data + metadata are stored in memory before a spill
>>(an I/O operation is performed). you also get less merges (less I/O
>>operation?), but the negatives are blocking map operations and more
>>memory requirements. if you set them low, there are more frequent
>>spills (more I/O operations), but less memory requirements. it just
>>seems like no matter what you do, you are stuck: you may stall the
>>mapper if the values are high because of the amount of time required
>>to spill an enormous amount of data; you may stall the mapper if the
>>values are low because of the amount of I/O operations required
>>i must be understanding something wrong here because everywhere i
>>read, hadoop is supposed to be #1 at sorting. but here, in dealing
>>with the intermediary key-value pairs, in the process of sorting,
>>mappers can stall for any number of reasons.
>>does anyone know any competitive dynamic hadoop clustering service
>>like AWS EMR? the reason why i ask is because AWS EMR does not use
>>HDFS (it uses S3), and therefore, data locality is not possible. also,
>>i have read the TCP protocol is not efficient for network transfers;
>>if the S3 node and task nodes are far, this distance will certainly
>>exacerbate the situation of slow speed. it seems there are a lot of
>>factors working against me.
>>any help is appreciated.
>>On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Bejoy Ks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> From my first look, properties that can help you could be
>>> - Increase io sort factor to 100
>>> - Increase io.sort.mb to 512Mb
>>> - increase map task heap size to 2GB.
>>> If the task still stalls, try providing lesser input for each mapper.
>>> Bejoy KS
>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Jane Wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>