hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sandy Ryza <sandy.r...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Capacity scheduler puts all containers on one box
Date Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:48:02 GMT
For a work-around, if you turn on DRF / multi-resource scheduling, you
could use vcore capacities to limit the number of containers per node?

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Chris Riccomini
<criccomini@linkedin.com>wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> @Vinod: We aren't overriding the default, so we must be using -1 as the
> setting.
>
> @Sandy: We aren't specifying any racks/hosts when sending the resource
> requests. +1 regarding introducing a similar limit in capacity scheduler.
>
> Any recommended work-arounds in the mean time? Our utilization of the grid
> is very low because we're having to force high memory requests for the
> containers in order to guarantee a maximum number of containers on a
> single node (e.g. Set container memory MB set to 17GB to disallow more
> than 2 containers from being assigned to any one 48GB node).
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On 3/21/14 11:30 PM, "Sandy Ryza" <sandy.ryza@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> >yarn.scheduler.capacity.node-locality-delay will help if the app is
> >requesting containers at particular locations, but won't help spread
> >things
> >out evenly otherwise.
> >
> >The Fair Scheduler attempts an even spread.  By default, it only schedules
> >a single container each time it considers a node.  Decoupling scheduling
> >from node heartbeats (YARN-1010) makes it so that a high node heartbeat
> >interval doesn't result in this being slow.  Now that the Capacity
> >Scheduler has similar capabilities (YARN-1512), it might make sense to
> >introduce a similar limit?
> >
> >-Sandy
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> ><vinodkv@apache.org
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> What's the value for yarn.scheduler.capacity.node-locality-delay? It is
> >>-1
> >> by default in 2.2.
> >>
> >> We fixed the default to be a reasonable 40 (nodes in a rack) in 2.3.0
> >>that
> >> should spread containers a bit.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> +Vinod
> >>
> >> On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@linkedin.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey Guys,
> >> >
> >> > We're running YARN 2.2 with the capacity scheduler. Each NM is running
> >> with 40G of memory capacity. When we request a series containers with
> >>2G of
> >> memory from a single AM, we see the RM assigning them entirely to one NM
> >> until that NM is full, and then moving on to the next, and so on.
> >> Essentially, we have a grid with 20 nodes, and two are completely full,
> >>and
> >> the rest are completely empty. This is problematic because our
> >>containers
> >> use disk heavily, and are completely saturating the disks on the two
> >>nodes,
> >> which slows all of the containers down on these NMs.
> >> >
> >> >  1.  Is this expected behavior of the capacity scheduler? What about
> >>the
> >> fifo scheduler?
> >> >  2.  Is the recommended work around just to increase memory allocation
> >> per-container as a proxy for the disk capacity that's required? Given
> >>that
> >> there's no disk-level isolation, and no disk-level resource, I don't see
> >> another way around this.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> >>entity to
> >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> >>reader
> >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> >>that
> >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> >> received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> >>immediately
> >> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message