Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36760200C23 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:31:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 3507A160B62; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:31:11 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 574B7160B49 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:31:10 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 54263 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2017 17:31:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@giraph.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@giraph.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@giraph.apache.org Received: (qmail 54253 invoked by uid 99); 22 Feb 2017 17:31:09 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:31:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id EA282C0438 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:31:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.023 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.023 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.625] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pebet5e0jNNc for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com (mail-oi0-f48.google.com [209.85.218.48]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id EF55660E17 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id s205so5136057oif.3 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:31:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WRNhv+AzdAz53o54gZLT0u5bz+EAD3LQsOcWyHFjaOc=; b=KiW8hcyHlF4OCxZWP+VO/1bNj8ugQyp8XphLP1AGfQcQr6kyZP2mR0NYz3k6PRGcM7 HB5yqe4+pkMuuSGfxY9khNf78PSFD63MDcY7B0Soc+lVY0s0xjO8eSX2mSXattQylPDf fKn0Dluhcvv2KNI9/KmuNw8vswo8zUcBSRfH/i7vB0oT4S4JAlrom8zHkN0aYpuDuVHf yD4gJC+XJCqi3p2wjyYYkr6h6CuEcJW3+2VYUOImuJaqisBJv0shvxUvhce0UBNN29xa 1ZCmBek5C0SF7bIY3ulF8/4LoSjXEZxLF6fKjEIa95zmGF3jYCzD2ZFaxiMR/CHpdbtD 6Bvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=WRNhv+AzdAz53o54gZLT0u5bz+EAD3LQsOcWyHFjaOc=; b=hIz5OmFfVCdtlSvpPT0WBqOXXCjnTietxsIiYF/1B7QAAk9bBYJT5H6EidBbIdRHzV Bj+ixbMwBP/DarGfHDDzqjTAFDAJXFtSf8ssx3TlMOZGMPQ2dfI69w+AEw2rU3+QmW0M gKz2pbjR6SrPq79kZO1BaiKHOehY8Omnp+XbKNJqR5xhnZeY8vPSwzZyOoPl7Z95dVcd vY8M3qypz0er3ZtKrYp3AGsTc0gVgCBNtm4EKkxGK4VPl8IHwHFA1G0Q5n/em/U8ucRe VNizbGJRUGsvodmRSB0oStD4UP3K9ZLwRqEcxY+Paz9tg0IAqc8kheUG5jkT94nYTQC4 bdhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mU8zl3oIC8hGz1Kp90VshkQn0HYaOIwMHY8PhSbTpczibkBMJlclmN9XsJOxUIzV1egZoZmafbFxdIWA== X-Received: by 10.202.218.134 with SMTP id r128mr15417142oig.2.1487784667242; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:31:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.54.87 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:30:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_Luis_Larroque?= Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:30:46 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF GIRAPH WORKERS AND THE PROBLEM SIZE To: user@giraph.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d466e97ea9a054921dc85 archived-at: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:31:11 -0000 --001a113d466e97ea9a054921dc85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I remember that a good practice is using 1 worker per node, there are several emails recommending this. It's the best way to use the maximum RAM available in the cluster i believe. Bye --=20 *Jos=C3=A9 Luis Larroque* Analista Programador Universitario - Facultad de Inform=C3=A1tica - UNLP Desarrollador Java y .NET en LIFIA 2017-02-22 7:34 GMT-03:00 Ramesh Krishnan : > HI Ganesh, > > Recommendation is to increase the number of nodes with lesser ram size. > Your number of executors depend on the CPU core hence, i would recommend > using 60 GB RAM cpu's with 2 executors each for your use case. > > Thanks > Ramesh > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Sai Ganesh Muthuraman < > saiganeshpsn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am running a giraph application in the XSEDE comet cluster for graphs >> of different sizes. >> For a graph with 10,000 edges, I used about 8 workers on 2 nodes, each >> node having 128GB RAM. My input file itself is just about 200KB. >> But when I tried to increase the number of workers to 20 or more and the >> number of nodes, the application takes infinite time and does not finish= at >> all. >> >> I have another graph data of size 50MB or so that has millions of edges. >> If the number of workers is 2 or 3, I get this error >> * java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space* >> If the number of workers is more, then the application doesn't end at al= l. >> What is the best way to arrive at the number of workers and the number o= f >> nodes, given the problem size? Is trial and error the only way? >> >> >> Sai Ganesh >> >> >> > --001a113d466e97ea9a054921dc85 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I remember that a good practice is using 1 worker per node= , there are several emails recommending this. It's the best way to use = the maximum RAM available in the cluster i believe.

Bye<= br>


--=C2=A0
= Jos=C3=A9 Luis Larroque
Analista Progr= amador Universitario - Facultad de Inform=C3=A1tica - UNLP
Desarrollador Java y .NET =C2=A0en LIFIA

2017-02-22 7:34 GMT-03:00 Ramesh Krishnan <ramesh.154089@gmail.com>:
HI Ganesh,

Recommendation is to in= crease the number of nodes with lesser ram size. Your number of executors d= epend on the CPU core hence, i would recommend using 60 GB RAM cpu's wi= th 2 executors each for your use case.

Thanks
Ramesh

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Sai Ganes= h Muthuraman <saiganeshpsn@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;line-height:22px;background-c= olor:rgb(251,250,250)">I am running a giraph application in the XSEDE comet= cluster for graphs of different sizes.=C2=A0
= For a graph with 10,000 edges, I used about 8 workers on 2 nodes, each node= having 128GB RAM. My input file itself is just about 200KB.=C2=A0
But when I tried to increase the number of workers to 2= 0 or more and the number of nodes, the application takes infinite time and = does not finish at all.=C2=A0

I have another graph data of size 50MB or so that has milli= ons of edges. If the number of workers is 2 or 3, I get this error
=C2=A0java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
If the number of workers is more, then the ap= plication doesn't end at all.
What is the b= est way to arrive at the number of workers and the number of nodes, given t= he problem size? Is trial and error the only way?


Sai Ganesh
=



--001a113d466e97ea9a054921dc85--