Mailing-List: contact user-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nitinpawar432@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7AFB227D47B00A49A4C9E00FF82685B42E90E4@sara-exch-2.ka.sara.nl>
References: <7AFB227D47B00A49A4C9E00FF82685B42E8E01@sara-exch-2.ka.sara.nl>
	<CAORpBsj87=KvTNkGp0EB1XuCWY-s1o5xB==uiVL_RGRZr7nOJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7AFB227D47B00A49A4C9E00FF82685B42E90E4@sara-exch-2.ka.sara.nl>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:26:22 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAORpBsjqPYFx2Wtue8=qHpE=a=TevdShU=700UUs3NqHeAJ0ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pending reducers
From: Nitin Pawar <nitinpawar432@gmail.com>
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

whats the memory/cpu stats on the machines ? are they exhausted

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Evert Lammerts <Evert.Lammerts@sara.nl> wrote:
>> reducers of multiple jobs do run con-currently as long as they have the
>> resources available.
>
> Yep, and that's what's not happening in my situation. 528 reduce slots, 400 taken by one job, 26 of another job remain in pending state. What could explain this behavior?
>
> Evert
>
>>
>> If you want to limit someone overtaking the cluster, then you can
>> create different job queues and assign quota to each queue. You also
>> have the flexibility of allocating max quota per user in a queue as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Evert Lammerts
>> <Evert.Lammerts@sara.nl> wrote:
>> > Hi list,
>> >
>> > I have a cluster running Hadoop 0.20.205 with Kerberos enabled,
>> exposing 528 map slots and 528 reduce slots. Currently somebody is
>> running a NORMAL priority job with 7 mappers and 400 reducers. The
>> mappers have finished and the system is processing the reducers.
>> Another user is running a NORMAL priority job with 1 mapper and 26
>> reducers. The mapper has finished, but the reducers won't come out of
>> "pending" state. There are no other jobs running right now. We've not
>> yet installed a different scheduler, so right now the system is using
>> the default scheduler. How can this behavior be explained? I see
>> mappers of multiple jobs run concurrently, and I *thought* I've seen
>> reducers of multiple jobs run concurrently, but I'm not completely
>> sure. Any idea?
>> >
>> > Evert
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nitin Pawar


-- 
Nitin Pawar