hadoop-yarn-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karthik Kambatla (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (YARN-371) Resource-centric compression in AM-RM protocol limits scheduling
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:13:12 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13571734#comment-13571734
] 

Karthik Kambatla commented on YARN-371:
---------------------------------------

IIUC, changing the protocol doesn't necessarily require changing how the AM uses it. We should
still be able to send requests the way we do today in the new protocol that being proposed
here. 

The AM should be able to make that decision. A custom MR-AM (or any other AM) might decide
a task-centric resource model is better. Also, the same AM might want to adopt different request
models for different requests? Answering Bobby's questions should help us figure out the threshold
if one really were to adopt this hybrid model. By no means, I am proposing we do this in MR
at this moment.

I believe Sandy's proposal to change the protocol to ensure we don't break compatibility later
(thinking Hadoop-2,3, etc) makes sense, even if we don't want to change the way we use it.

Please correct me if I am missing something here.
                
> Resource-centric compression in AM-RM protocol limits scheduling
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-371
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-371
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: api, resourcemanager, scheduler
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.2-alpha
>            Reporter: Sandy Ryza
>            Assignee: Sandy Ryza
>
> Each AMRM heartbeat consists of a list of resource requests. Currently, each resource
request consists of a container count, a resource vector, and a location, which may be a node,
a rack, or "*". When an application wishes to request a task run in multiple localtions, it
must issue a request for each location.  This means that for a node-local task, it must issue
three requests, one at the node-level, one at the rack-level, and one with * (any). These
requests are not linked with each other, so when a container is allocated for one of them,
the RM has no way of knowing which others to get rid of. When a node-local container is allocated,
this is handled by decrementing the number of requests on that node's rack and in *. But when
the scheduler allocates a task with a node-local request on its rack, the request on the node
is left there.  This can cause delay-scheduling to try to assign a container on a node that
nobody cares about anymore.
> Additionally, unless I am missing something, the current model does not allow requests
for containers only on a specific node or specific rack. While this is not a use case for
MapReduce currently, it is conceivable that it might be something useful to support in the
future, for example to schedule long-running services that persist state in a particular location,
or for applications that generally care less about latency than data-locality.
> Lastly, the ability to understand which requests are for the same task will possibly
allow future schedulers to make more intelligent scheduling decisions, as well as permit a
more exact understanding of request load.
> I would propose the tweak of allowing a single ResourceRequest to encapsulate all the
location information for a task.  So instead of just a single location, a ResourceRequest
would contain an array of locations, including nodes that it would be happy with, racks that
it would be happy with, and possibly *.  Side effects of this change would be a reduction
in the amount of data that needs to be transferred in a heartbeat, as well in as the RM's
memory footprint, becaused what used to be different requests for the same task are now able
to share some common data.
> While this change breaks compatibility, if it is going to happen, it makes sense to do
it now, before YARN becomes beta.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message