Mailing-List: contact hadoop-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <11071321.1179690856640.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 12:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Arun C Murthy (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Updated: (HADOOP-869) Proposal for redesign/refactoring of
 the JobTracker and TaskTracker
In-Reply-To: <21573521.1168369107970.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-869?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Arun C Murthy updated HADOOP-869:
---------------------------------

    Attachment: mapred_as_dfa.patch

While thinking about a generic dfa (HADOOP-1395) I started wondering about some places where it could be applicable and this I thought could be the right place to put down some early thoughts...

I've attached a half-baked patch to illustrate how Job/Task/TaskAttempt (i.e. JobInProgress/TaskInProgress/Task in current nomenclature) could be modelled as a dfa... 

Appreciate if people could chime in... what do hadoop-{dev|users} think? Is it an overkill? Impractical? Feasible? 

Thoughts?

> Proposal for redesign/refactoring of the JobTracker and TaskTracker
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-869
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-869
>             Project: Hadoop
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: mapred
>            Reporter: Arun C Murthy
>         Assigned To: Arun C Murthy
>         Attachments: mapred_as_dfa.patch
>
>
> During discussions on HADOOP-815 wrt some hard-to-maintain code on the JobTracker we all agreed that the current state-of-affairs there is brittle and merits some rework.
> Case in point: there are back-calls from TaskInProgress to JobTracker and from JobInProgress to JobTracker which mean that synchronization is quite involved and brittle, leading to issues like HADOOP-600. Also one is forced to lock several data-structures individually before certain operations (taskTrackers, trackerExpiryQueue, jobs etc.)
> Hence I'd like to present some early thoughts (which have undergone a quick iteration) on how we could do slightly better by a bit of redesign/refactoring, also during discussions with Owen on the same we agreed that HADOOP-554 is an integral part along the same direction... and I also feel that a good candidate to be done along with this is HADOOP-398 (mapred package refactoring).
> Context:
> ---------
> a) The unit of communication between the JobTracker & TaskTracker is a 'task'.
> b) Due to (a) the JobTracker maintains a bunch of information related on the 'taskid' i.e. taskidToTipMap, taskidToTrackerMap etc. and hence we need to update the JobTracker's data-structures via back-calls from TaskInProgress & JobInProgress where the context is available (complete/failed task, already-completed task etc.)
> c) This implies that we have a fairly elaborate and hard to maintain locking structures and also some redundant information in the JobTracker; making it harder to maintain.
> Overall at both the JobTracker & TaskTracker the concept of a 'job' is overshadowed by the 'task'; which I propose we fix.
> Proposal:
> ----------
> Here is the main flow of control:
> JobTracker -> JobInProgress -> TaskInProgress -> task_attempt
> The main idea is to break the existing nexus between the JobTracker & TaskInProgress/taskid by (I've put code for illustrative purposes only, and ignored pieces irrelevant to this discussion):
> a) Making the 'job' the primary unit of communication between JobTracker & TaskTracker.
> b) TaskTrackerStatus now looks like this: 
>   class TaskTrackerStatus {
>     List<JobStatus> jobStatuses; // the status of the 'jobs' running on a TaskTracker
>     String getTrackerName();
>   }
>   class JobStatus {
>     List<TaskStatus> taskStatuses; // the status of the 'tasks' belonging to a job
>     JobId getJobId();
>   }
> c) The JobTracker maintains only a single map of jobid -> JobInProgress, and mapping from taskTracker -> List<JobInProgress>
>   Map<JobId, JobInProgress> allJobs;
>   Map<String, List<JobInProgress>> trackerToJobsMap;
> d) The JobTracker delegates a bunch of responsibilities to the JobInProgress to reflect the fact the primary 'concept' in map/reduce is the 'job', thus empowering the JobInProgress class:
>   class JobInProgress {
>     TaskInProgress[] mapTasks;
>     TaskInProgress[] reduceTasks;
>     
>     Map<String, List<TaskInProgress>> trackerToTasksMap; // tracker -> tasks running
>     Map<String, List<TaskAttempt>> trackerToMarkedTasksMap; // tracker -> completed (success/failed/killed) task-attempt, 
>                                                                                          //                but the tracker doesn't know it yet
>     void updateStatus(JobStatus jobStatus);
>     MapOutputLocation[] getMapOutputLocations(int[] mapTasksNeeded, int reduce);
>     TaskAttempt getTaskToRun(String taskTracker);
>     List<TaskTrackerAction> getTaskToKill(String taskTracker);
>   }
>   
> d) On receipt of TaskTrackerStatus from a tracker, the processeing of heartbeat looks like this:
>   for (JobStatus jobStatus : taskTrackerStatus.getJobStatuses()) {
>    JobInProgress job = allJobs.get(jobId);
>    synchronized (job) {
>      job.updateStatus(jobStatus);
>      return (HeartbeatResponse(repsonseId,
>                                job.getTaskAttemptToRun(trackerName), 
>                                job.getTaskToKill(trackerName)
>                               ));
>     }
>   }
>    
> The big change is that the JobTracker delegates a lot of responsibility to the JobInProgress, we get away from all the complicated synchronization constructs: simply lock the JobInProgress object at all places via allJobs/trackerToJobsMap and we are done. This also enhances throughput since mostly we will not need to lock up the JobTracker (even in the heartbeat loop); locking the JobInProgress or the 2 maps is sufficient in most cases... thus enhance the inherent parallelism of the JobTracker's inner loop (processing heartbeat) and provide better response when multiple jobs are running on the cluster. 
> Hence the JobInProgress is responsible for maintaining it's TaskInProgress'es which in turn are completely responsible for the TaskAttempt`s, the JobInProgress also provides sufficient information as and when needed to the JobTracker to schedule jobs/tasks and the JobTracker is blissfully unaware of the innards of jobs/tasks.
> -*-*-
> I hope to articulate more a general direction towards an improved and maintainable 'mapred' and would love to hear out how we can improve and pitfalls to avoid... lets discuss. We could take this piecemeal an implement or at one go...
> Last, not least; I propose that while we are at this we redo the nomenclature a bit:
> JobInProgress -> Job
> TaskInProgress -> Task
> taskid -> replace with a new TaskAttempt
> this should help clarify each class and it's roles.
> Of course we will probably need a separate org.apache.hadoop.mapred.job.Task v/s org.apache.hadoop.mapred.task.Task which is why I feel HADOOP-554 (refactoring of mapred packages) would be very important to get a complete, coherent solution.
> Thoughts?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.