Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60373 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2010 18:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 14 Oct 2010 18:16:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 25379 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2010 18:16:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 25332 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2010 18:16:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 25324 invoked by uid 99); 14 Oct 2010 18:16:11 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:16:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of airbots@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.176] (HELO mail-wy0-f176.google.com) (74.125.82.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:16:06 +0000 Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so77912wyf.35 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=HIuIuQp358hTOV7FFsjBUIefs4SwLqDVlAoujSuTF3o=; b=P7yE3MUgjAMpe8m3abYGXGiIHjRFvKu7HZx+kdxHWhpLugYs65/AW3yUM3bgd26LoB IZRoI70hSSwyejNYeJjRoWMwcwjyWUdC7it1H4Xrdu630cTr9jQ15rkH6zTFsuVb2dZY 79+pl48DdLA3UzgpBL81KdShmV200JgMRLlf0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=FrGQq9tPpFwfOBicWfIt9neg7naDlBp77XNEcf0iIZCOr+3flCRN0O4N8ibT5EOk16 BbLP9lSY5iQfpabR7VAHQp5Zu0C3pEgjZ3rMyHilGbdrJAoUDtghx7EIzWCCubFB3OXz keVgybR0+SCt6DWyzLnhWdgcZcgisL0GWaCXM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.153.208 with SMTP id l16mr10600349wbw.199.1287080140974; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.85.79 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:15:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:15:40 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Hadoop's deafult FIFO scheduler From: He Chen To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64c276499ad1a049297b2c3 --0016e64c276499ad1a049297b2c3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I doubt this. According to the execution record. the disk and network utilization are the same. At last, if the FCFS scheduler only apply for the setup stage which takes about several second. This does not mean anything. users who submit their jobs earlier only ge job setup earlier, but may be delayed for any possible hardware and software reason? Acutally, most of the job can be finished following the FIFO sequence. What I am curious is about why some one get in the FIFO queue at the start point. What is the reason? On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Nan Zhu wrote: > Hi, Chen > > I think it's due to the disk/network performance, I mean the speed of > reading the content on disk/network into the local memory > > if job3 hasn't complete data to start mappers, but job4 does, the > scheduler > would select the tasks of job4 from the list to run firstly, > > I think the so called FIFO principle is intended to setup stage, the > firstly > arrived job would be setup firstly > > Nan > > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:29 AM, He Chen wrote: > > > they arrived in 1 minute. I understand there will be a setup phase which > > will use any free slot no matter map or reduce. > > > > My queue time is the period between the start of Map stage and the time > job > > is submitted. Because the setup phase has the higher priority than map > and > > reduce tasks. Any job submitted in the queue will setup no matter how > many > > previous map and reduce tasks need to be assigned. > > > > Now, I am sure the job3 setup stage finished earlier than job4's. > However, > > job3's map stage start later than job4's. BTW, they request same amount > of > > blocks. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM, abhishek sharma > > wrote: > > > > > What is the inter-arrival time between these jobs? > > > > > > There is a "set up" phase for jobs before they are launched. It is > > > possible that the order of jobs can change due to slightly different > > > set up times. Apart from the number of blocks, it may matter "where" > > > these blocks lie. > > > > > > Abhishek > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:06 AM, He Chen wrote: > > > > Hi all > > > > > > > > I am testing the performance of my Hadoop clsuters with Hadoop > Default > > > FIFO > > > > schedular. But I find a interesting phenomina. > > > > > > > > When I submit a series of jobs, some job will be executed earlier > even > > > they > > > > are submitted late. All jobs are request same amount of blocks. For > > > example: > > > > job 1 submit at time 0 > > > > job 2 submit at time 1 > > > > job 3 submit at time 2 > > > > job 4 submit at time 3 > > > > > > > > > > > > job 4 's queue time is smaller than job3's queue time. This disobey > the > > > FIFO > > > > principle. Any one can give a hint? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > --0016e64c276499ad1a049297b2c3--