hadoop-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patai Sangbutsarakum <Patai.Sangbutsara...@turn.com>
Subject Re: Spindle per Cores
Date Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:53:05 GMT
Thanks everyone.
I think I got the idea and I would start to think in reverse by looking at the budget that
willing to pay for the cluster then get
the best performance that can keep ratio of CPU:memory:Spindle.


From: ranjith raghunath <ranjith.raghunath1@gmail.com<mailto:ranjith.raghunath1@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: <user@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:user@hadoop.apache.org>>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:27:50 -0500
To: <user@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:user@hadoop.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Spindle per Cores


Thanks Michael.

On Oct 12, 2012 9:59 PM, "Michael Segel" <michael_segel@hotmail.com<mailto:michael_segel@hotmail.com>>
wrote:
I think what we are seeing is the ratio based on physical Xeon cores.
So hyper threading wouldn't make any change to  the actual ratio.
(1 disk per physical core, would be 1 disk per 2 virtual cores.)

Again YMMV and of course thanks to this guy Moore who decided to write some weird laws...
the ratio could change over time as the CPUs become more efficient and faster.


On Oct 12, 2012, at 9:52 PM, ranjith raghunath <ranjith.raghunath1@gmail.com<mailto:ranjith.raghunath1@gmail.com>>
wrote:


Does hypertheading affect this ratio?

On Oct 12, 2012 9:36 PM, "Michael Segel" <michael_segel@hotmail.com<mailto:michael_segel@hotmail.com>>
wrote:
First, the obvious caveat... YMMV

Having said that.

The key here is to take a look across the various jobs that you will run. Some may be more
CPU intensive, others more I/O intensive.

If you monitor these jobs via Ganglia, when you have too few spindles you should see the wait
cpu rise on the machines in the cluster.  That is to say that you are putting an extra load
on the systems because you're waiting for the disks to catch up.

If you increase the ratio of disks to CPU, you should see that load drop as you are not wasting
CPU cycles.

Note that its not just the number of spindles, but also the bus and the controller cards that
can also affect the throughput of disk I/O.

Now just IMHO, there was a discussion on some of the CPU recommendations. To a point, it doesn't
matter that much. You want to maximize the bang for the buck you can get w your hardware purchase.

Use the ratio as a buying guide. Fewer than a ratio of 1 disk per core, and you're wasting
the cpu that you bought.

Going higher than a ratio of 1, like 1.5, and you may be buying too many spindles and not
see a performance gain that offsets your cost.

Search for a happy medium and don't sweat the maximum performance that you may get.

HTH

On Oct 12, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Jeffrey Buell <jbuell@vmware.com<mailto:jbuell@vmware.com>>
wrote:

> I've done some experiments along these lines.  I'm using high-performance 15K RPM SAS
drives instead of the more usual SATA drives, which should reduce the number of drives I need.
 I have dual 4-core processors at 3.6 GHz.  These are more powerful than the average 4-core
processor, which should increase the number of drives I need.  Assuming these 2 effects cancel,
then my results should also apply to machines with SATA drives and average processors.  Using
8 drives (1-1) gets good performance for teragen and terasort.  Going to 12 drives (1.5 per
core) increases terasort performance by 15%.  That might not seem like much compared to increasing
the number of drives by 50%, but a better comparison is that 4 extra drives increased the
cost of each machine by only about 12%, so the extra drives are (barely) worth it. If you're
more time sensitive than cost sensitive, they they're definitely worth it.  The extra drives
did not help teragen, apparently because both CPU and the internal storage controller were
close to saturation. So, of course everything depends on the app.  You're shooting for saturated
CPUs and disk bandwidth.  Check that the CPU is not saturated (after checking Hadoop tuning
and optimizing the number of tasks). Check that you have enough memory for more tasks with
room leftover for a large buffer cache.  Use 10 GbE networking or make sure the network has
enough headroom.  Check the storage controller can handle more bandwidth.  If all are true
(that is, no other bottlenecks), consider adding more drives.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hank Cohen [mailto:hank.cohen@altior.com<mailto:hank.cohen@altior.com>]
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 1:46 PM
>> To: user@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:user@hadoop.apache.org>
>> Subject: RE: Spindle per Cores
>>
>> What empirical evidence is there for this rule of thumb?
>> In other words, what tests or metrics would indicate an optimal
>> spindle/core ratio and how dependent is this on the nature of the data
>> and of the map/reduce computation?
>>
>> My understanding is that there are lots of clusters with more spindles
>> than cores.  Specifically, typical 2U servers can hold 12 3.5" disk
>> drives.  So lots of Hadoop clusters have dual 4 core processors and 12
>> spindles.  Would it be better to have 6 core processors if you are
>> loading up the boxes with 12 disks?  And most importantly, how would
>> one know that the mix was optimal?
>>
>> Hank Cohen
>> Altior Inc.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patai Sangbutsarakum [mailto:silvianhadoop@gmail.com<mailto:silvianhadoop@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:46 AM
>> To: user@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:user@hadoop.apache.org>
>> Subject: Spindle per Cores
>>
>> I have read around about the hardware recommendation for hadoop
>> cluster.
>> One of them is recommend 1:1 ratio between spindle per core.
>>
>> Intel CPU come with Hyperthread which will double the number cores on
>> one physical CPU. eg. 8 cores with Hyperthread it because 16 which is
>> where we start to calculate about number of task slots per node.
>>
>> Once it come to spindle, i strongly believe I should pick 8 cores and
>> picks 8 disks in order to get 1:1 ratio.
>>
>> Please suggest
>> Patai
>>
>
>



Mime
View raw message