hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Runping Qi (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HADOOP-910) Reduces can do merges for the on-disk map output files in parallel with their copying
Date Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:30:31 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-910?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12466060
] 

Runping Qi commented on HADOOP-910:
-----------------------------------


This proposal will definitely improve the sortin phase on the reducer side. 
I have one suggestion. Instead of starting merge greadily as soon as a Reduce has 
collected io.sort.factor number of segments on disk,  you should wait 
until the Reducer has collected close to  2 * io.sort.factor - 1 number of segments. 
This way, you can always choose the io.sort.factor number of smallest segments 
to merge and aviod unnecessary merging large segments. 
This will also result in a more balanced final segments.
I suspect multiple merging threads may not buy you too much since disk i/o will 
be the bottleneck of a merging thread, unless a single merging cannot fully 
utilize all the available disk resources.


> Reduces can do merges for the on-disk map output files in parallel with their copying
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-910
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-910
>             Project: Hadoop
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: mapred
>            Reporter: Devaraj Das
>
> Proposal to extend the parallel in-memory-merge/copying, that is being done as part of
HADOOP-830, to the on-disk files.
> Today, the Reduces dump the map output files to disk and the final merge happens only
after all the map outputs have been collected. It might make sense to parallelize this part.
That is, whenever a Reduce has collected io.sort.factor number of segments on disk, it initiates
a merge of those and creates one big segment. If the rate of copying is faster than the merge,
we can probably have multiple threads doing parallel merges of independent sets of io.sort.factor
number of segments. If the rate of copying is not as fast as merge, we stand to gain a lot
- at the end of copying of all the map outputs, we will be left with a small number of segments
for the final merge (which hopefully will feed the reduce directly (via the RawKeyValueIterator)
without having to hit the disk for writing additional output segments).
> If the disk bandwidth is higher than the network bandwidth, we have a good story, I guess,
to do such a thing.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message