hadoop-common-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Goryunov <a.goryu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Distributed table processing is slower that local table processing
Date Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:45:08 GMT
Hi Anil,

Yes, I'm sure I'm running cluster in distributed mode (I see 21 parallel
map tasks in job tracker and processes on each node). max map tasks set to
7 for each node.

I run my job with the same cluster configuration on two tables:
1. Table located only on 1 node (I see it on HBase master page) - 10M
records
2. Table even distribute on 3 nodes (also checked on HBase master page) -
150M records.


Thanks.

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:57 AM, anil gupta <anilgupt@buffalo.edu> wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> If you can provide more details of the stuff you are doing then it would be
> helpful. Are you sure that your cluster is running in distributed mode? Did
> you ran the job with 1 node in cluster and then added 2 additional node to
> the same cluster?
>
> Thanks,
> Anil
>
> 2012/3/30 Alexander Goryunov <a.goryunov@gmail.com>
>
> >  Hi Anil,
> >
> > Yes, the second table is distributed, the first is not and I have 3х
> better
> > results for nondistrubuted table.
> >
> > I use distributed hadoop mode for all cases.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:26 AM, anil gupta <anilgupt@buffalo.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alexander,
> > >
> > > Is data properly distributed over the cluster in Distributed Mode? If
> the
> > > data is not then you wont get good results in distributed mode.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anil Gupta
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Alexander Goryunov <
> > a.goryunov@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I'm running 3 data node cluster (8core Xeon, 16G) + 1 node for
> > jobtracker
> > > > and namenode with Hadoop and HBase and have strange performance
> > results.
> > > >
> > > > The same map job runs with speed about 300 000 records per second
> for 1
> > > > node table and 100 000 records per second for table  distributed to 3
> > > > nodes.
> > > >
> > > > Scan caching is 1000, each row is about 0.2K, compression is off,
> > > > setCacheBlock is false.
> > > >
> > > > 7 map tasks in parallel for each node. (281 for the big table in
> > summary
> > > > and 16 for the small table)
> > > >
> > > > Map job reads some sequential data and writes down a few from it. No
> > > reduce
> > > > tasks are set for this job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Both table have the same data and have sizes about 10M (first one)
> > > records
> > > > and 150M (second one) records.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any idea what could be the reason of such behavior?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Anil Gupta
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Anil Gupta
>

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