hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 李钰 <car...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Questions about recommendation value of the "io.sort.mb" parameter
Date Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:46:34 GMT
Hi Sriguru,

Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions!
Here I still have some questions: since map mainly do data preparation,
say split input data into KVPs, sort and partition before spill, would the
size of map output KVPs be much larger than the input data size? If not,
since one map task deals with one input split, and one input split is
usually 64M, the map KVPs size would be proximately 64M. Could you please
give me some example on map output much larger than the input split? It
really confuse me for some time, thanks.

Others,

Also badly need your help if you know about this, thanks.

Best Regards,
Carp

在 2010年6月23日 下午5:11,Srigurunath Chakravarthi <sriguru@yahoo-inc.com>写道:

> Hi Carp,
>  Your assumption is right that this is a per-map-task setting.
> However, this buffer stores map output KVPs, not input. Therefore the
> optimal value depends on how much data your map task is generating.
>
> If your output per map is greater than io.sort.mb, these rules of thumb
> that could work for you:
>
> 1) Increase max heap of map tasks to use RAM better, but not hit swap.
> 2) Set io.sort.mb to ~70% of heap.
>
> Overall, causing extra "spills" (because of insufficient io.sort.mb) is
> much better than risking swapping (by setting io.sort.mb and heap too
> large), in terms of relative performance penalty you will pay.
>
> Cheers,
> Sriguru
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: 李钰 [mailto:carp84@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:27 PM
> >To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >Subject: Questions about recommendation value of the "io.sort.mb"
> >parameter
> >
> >Dear all,
> >
> >Here I've got a question about the "io.sort.mb" parameter. We can find
> >material from Yahoo! or Cloudera which recommend setting this value to
> >200
> >if the job scale is large, but I'm confused about this. As I know,
> >the tasktracker will launch a child-JVM for each task, and
> >“*io.sort.mb*”
> >presents the buffer size in memory inside *one map task child-JVM*, the
> >default value 100MB should be large enough because the input split of
> >one
> >map task is usually 64MB, as large as the block size we usually set.
> >Then
> >why the recommendation of “*io.sort.mb*” is 200MB for large jobs (and
> >it
> >really works)? How could the job size affect the procedure?
> >Is there any fault here of my understanding? Any comment/suggestion
> >will be
> >highly valued, thanks in advance.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >Carp
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message