From common-issues-return-160396-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hadoop.apache.org Fri Nov 2 17:18:29 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 59F6F180789 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 17:18:29 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 7614 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 2018 16:18:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact common-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list common-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 7603 invoked by uid 99); 2 Nov 2018 16:18:28 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 16:18:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D9C0D180A70 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:18:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.301 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3PJ5tetQ8bnX for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:18:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id A382C5F532 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:18:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 0CCC0E25B2 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:18:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7BEF92776C for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:18:25 +0000 (UTC) From: "Wei Yan (JIRA)" To: common-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HADOOP-15016) Cost-Based RPC FairCallQueue with Reservation support MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15016?page=3Dcom.atlassi= an.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D16= 673358#comment-16673358 ]=20 Wei Yan commented on HADOOP-15016: ---------------------------------- [~xkrogen]=C2=A0,=C2=A0feel free to go ahead. cc [~csun] > Cost-Based RPC FairCallQueue with Reservation support > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HADOOP-15016 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15016 > Project: Hadoop Common > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Wei Yan > Assignee: Wei Yan > Priority: Major > Attachments: Adding reservation support to NameNode RPC resource.= pdf, Adding reservation support to NameNode RPC resource_v2.pdf, HADOOP-150= 16_poc.patch > > > FairCallQueue is introduced to provide RPC resource fairness among differ= ent users. In current implementation, each user is weighted equally, and th= e processing priority for different RPC calls are based on how many request= s that user sent before. This works well when the cluster is shared among s= everal end-users. > However, this has some limitations when a cluster is shared among both en= d-users and some service jobs, like some ETL jobs which run under a service= account and need to issue lots of RPC calls. When NameNode becomes quite b= usy, this set of jobs can be easily backoffed and low-prioritied. We cannot= simply treat this type jobs as "bad" user who randomly issues too many cal= ls, as their calls are normal calls. Also, it is unfair to weight a end-use= r and a heavy service user equally when allocating RPC resources. > One idea here is to introduce reservation support to RPC resources. That = is, for some services, we reserve some RPC resources for their calls. This = idea is very similar to how YARN manages CPU/memory resources among differe= nt resource queues. A little more details here: Along with existing FairCal= lQueue setup (like using 4 queues with different priorities), we would add = some additional special queues, one for each special service user. For each= special service user, we provide a guarantee RPC share (like 10% which can= be aligned with its YARN resource share), and this percentage can be conve= rted to a weight used in WeightedRoundRobinMultiplexer. A quick example, we= have 4 default queues with default weights (8, 4, 2, 1), and two special s= ervice users (user1 with 10% share, and user2 with 15% share). So finally w= e'll have 6 queues, 4 default queues (with weights 8, 4, 2, 1) and 2 specia= l queues (user1Queue weighted 15*10%/75%=3D2, and user2Queue weighted 15*15= %/75%=3D3). > For new coming RPC calls from special service users, they will be put dir= ectly to the corresponding reserved queue; for other calls, just follow cur= rent implementation. > By default, there is no special user and all RPC requests follow existing= FairCallQueue implementation. > Would like to hear more comments on this approach; also want to know any = other better solutions? Will put a detailed design once get some early comm= ents. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: common-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org