hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Jungblut <thomas.jungb...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Chaining Supersteps setup, bsp and cleanup execution order
Date Mon, 21 May 2012 14:30:43 GMT
I thought it is not more than just a job cleanup. So actually just the last
superstep should be interested in cleaning up. But there may be resources
in other steps that should be cleaned up as well.
However, Why do you need Order2 if you can simply put the code in cleanup
to the end of the compute function? Same with setup.

2012/5/21 Suraj Menon <surajsmenon@apache.org>

> Hi, I wanted to open this discussion on the order by which the setup,
> bsp and cleanup functions are called in Chaining Supestep design.
>
> Today the execution order is (say for 3 supersteps defined for a task) :
>
> **Order1**
>
> 1. Superstep1.setup
> 2. Superstep2.setup
> 3. Superstep3.setup
> 4. Superstep1.compute
> 5. Superstep2.compute
> 6. Superstep3.compute
> 7. Superstep1.cleanup
> 8. Superstep2.cleanup
> 9. Superstep3.cleanup
>
> However, I had a totally different intuition on this. I assumed that
> every Superstep lifecycle is completely executed before the next one
> in chain.
> I programmed setup of Superstep2 to be dependent on results in
> Superstep1#compute function, which turned out to be buggy.
>
>
> **Order2**
>
> 1. Superstep1.setup
> 2. Superstep1.compute
> 3. Superstep1.cleanup
> 4. Superstep2.setup
> 5. Superstep2.compute
> 6. Superstep2.cleanup
> 7. Superstep3.setup
> 8. Superstep3.bsp
> 9. Superstep3.cleanup
>
> This might be counter-intuitive for some others. Looking for opinions
> on which execution order to choose.
> We have not released it yet, hence we can make a decision in time.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Suraj
>



-- 
Thomas Jungblut
Berlin <thomas.jungblut@gmail.com>

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