hadoop-hdfs-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Why my tests shows Yarn is worse than MRv1 for terasort?
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2013 03:55:40 GMT
Can you share the configs you used for both YARN and MRv1?

Note that for teragen, there's a HDFS difference involved. The HDFS2
is quite faster than HDFS from older versions. Ideally you may want to
compare them on the same HDFS version.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, sam liu <samliuhadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Experts,
> We are thinking about whether to use Yarn or not in the near future, and I
> ran teragen/terasort on Yarn and MRv1 for comprison.
> My env is three nodes cluster, and each node has similar hardware: 2 cpu(4
> core), 32 mem. Both Yarn and MRv1 cluster are set on the same env. To be
> fair, I did not make any performance tuning on their configurations, but use
> the default configuration values.
> Before testing, I think Yarn will be much better than MRv1, if they all use
> default configuration, because Yarn is a better framework than MRv1.
> However, the test result shows some differences:
> MRv1: Hadoop-1.1.1
> Yarn: Hadoop-2.0.4
> (A) Teragen: generate 10 GB data:
> - MRv1: 193 sec
> - Yarn: 69 sec
> Yarn is 2.8 times better than MRv1
> (B) Terasort: sort 10 GB data:
> - MRv1: 451 sec
> - Yarn: 1136 sec
> Yarn is 2.5 times worse than MRv1
> After a fast analysis, I think the direct cause might be that Yarn is much
> faster than MRv1 on Map phase, but much worse on Reduce phase.
> Here I have two questions:
> - Why my tests shows Yarn is worse than MRv1 for terasort?
> - What's the stratage for tuning Yarn performance? Is any materials?
> Thanks!

Harsh J

View raw message