Mailing-List: contact user-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of russell.jurney@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender)
References: 
 <CAMWNowE3vj3=Omc5MUm1S1qtF5x6OUst6bx1=9Su1zXKkeDDUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAu13zE+HFTRjH=6N=hB-jgPxSTanPA3RTVWk7EsCcV2yumCzg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Russell Jurney <russell.jurney@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAu13zE+HFTRjH=6N=hB-jgPxSTanPA3RTVWk7EsCcV2yumCzg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:56:36 -0700
Message-ID: <4215577957656723663@unknownmsgid>
Subject: Re: Why they recommend this (CPU) ?
To: "user@hadoop.apache.org" <user@hadoop.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Anyone got data on this? This is interesting, and somewhat counter-intuitiv=
e.

Russell Jurney http://datasyndrome.com

On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Jay Vyas <jayunit100@gmail.com> wrote:

> Presumably, if you have a reasonable number of cores - speeding the cores=
 up will be better than forking a task into smaller and smaller chunks - be=
cause at some point the overhead of multiple processes would be a bottlenec=
k - maybe due to streaming reads and writes?  I'm sure each and every probl=
em has a different sweet spot.