hadoop-mapreduce-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alok Kumar <alok...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hadoop schedulers!
Date Mon, 13 May 2013 19:32:18 GMT

As the name suggest, Fair-scheduler does a fair allocation of slot to the
Let say, you have 10 map slots in your cluster and it is occupied by a
job-1 which requires 30 map slot to finish. But the same time, another
job-2 require only 2 map slots to finish - Here slots will be provided to
job-2 to get finished quickly while job-1 will be keep running.

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Rahul Bhattacharjee <
rahul.rec.dgp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any pointer to my question.
> There is another question , kind-of dumb , but just wanted to clarify.
> Say in a FIFO scheduler or a capacity scheduler , if there are slots
> available and the first job doesn't need all of the available slots , then
> the job next in the queue is scheduled for execution or that still waits
> for the first job to finish?

- Jobs don't wait for all the slots to get freed. Execution will start as
soon as it get a slot. However, Hadoop does its best to allot a slot where
job can achieve data locality.

> Thanks,
> Rahul
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Rahul Bhattacharjee <
> rahul.rec.dgp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was going through the job schedulers of Hadoop and could not see any
>> major operational difference between the capacity scheduler and the fair
>> share scheduler apart from the fact that fair share scheduler supports
>> preemption and capacity scheduler doesn't.
>> Another thing is the former creates logical pools based on certain
>> attribute like username , user group etc and the later has a notion of job
>> queues. Can someone point me to any other major differences between these
>> two types of schedulers.
>> Another question in this regard is the capacity scheduler uses a FIFO
>> queue.So its still possible that a high priority long running job using all
>> the capacity allocated to the queue to block all the other jobs after it in
>> the queue.I think this is the expected behavior , but wanted to confirm.
>> Thanks,
>> Rahul


View raw message