You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to common-user@hadoop.apache.org by John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net> on 2013/11/11 15:28:40 UTC
worker affinity and YARN scheduling
I would like to better understand YARN's scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
* Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
* Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
* If the first task completes on worker "B", can I rely on the ResourceRequest for "B" to be fulfilled next?
* What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
* What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Thanks
John
RE: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>.
Thanks!
john
From: Arun C Murthy [mailto:acm@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 7:25 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>> wrote:
I would like to better understand YARN's scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
* Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
* Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
* If the first task completes on worker "B", can I rely on the ResourceRequest for "B" to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
* What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
* What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
Thanks
John
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
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.
RE: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>.
Thanks!
john
From: Arun C Murthy [mailto:acm@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 7:25 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>> wrote:
I would like to better understand YARN's scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
* Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
* Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
* If the first task completes on worker "B", can I rely on the ResourceRequest for "B" to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
* What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
* What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
Thanks
John
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
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.
RE: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>.
Thanks!
john
From: Arun C Murthy [mailto:acm@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 7:25 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>> wrote:
I would like to better understand YARN's scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
* Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
* Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
* If the first task completes on worker "B", can I rely on the ResourceRequest for "B" to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
* What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
* What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
Thanks
John
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
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.
RE: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>.
Thanks!
john
From: Arun C Murthy [mailto:acm@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 7:25 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net>> wrote:
I would like to better understand YARN's scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
* Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
* Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
* If the first task completes on worker "B", can I rely on the ResourceRequest for "B" to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
* What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
* What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
Thanks
John
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
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.
Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by Arun C Murthy <ac...@hortonworks.com>.
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net> wrote:
> I would like to better understand YARN’s scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
> · Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
> · Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
> · If the first task completes on worker “B”, can I rely on the ResourceRequest for “B” to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
> · What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
> · What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
> Thanks
> John
>
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
--
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.
Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by Arun C Murthy <ac...@hortonworks.com>.
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net> wrote:
> I would like to better understand YARN’s scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
> · Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
> · Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
> · If the first task completes on worker “B”, can I rely on the ResourceRequest for “B” to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
> · What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
> · What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
> Thanks
> John
>
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
--
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.
Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by Arun C Murthy <ac...@hortonworks.com>.
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net> wrote:
> I would like to better understand YARN’s scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
> · Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
> · Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
> · If the first task completes on worker “B”, can I rely on the ResourceRequest for “B” to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
> · What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
> · What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
> Thanks
> John
>
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
--
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.
Re: worker affinity and YARN scheduling
Posted by Arun C Murthy <ac...@hortonworks.com>.
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:28 AM, John Lilley <jo...@redpoint.net> wrote:
> I would like to better understand YARN’s scheduling with named workers and relaxedLocality==true. For example, suppose that I have a three-node cluster with nodes A,B,C. Each node has capacity to run two tasks of the kind I desire simultaneously. My AM then requests nine containers with worker-name set so that I am requesting three containers per worker. The cluster starts idle and has no other users. My questions:
> · Is it optimal to issue three ResourceRequests, each with numContainers==3? (As opposed to nine requests)
Correct, that is why the resource protocol is designed as it is i.e. reduce #requests required.
> · Initially, I expect the RM to allocate two containers per node, and I expect to have the containers match the named workers. Is this always the case?
Generally - yes. It does depend on the scheduler implementation though.
> · If the first task completes on worker “B”, can I rely on the ResourceRequest for “B” to be fulfilled next?
Generally - yes.
> · What techniques should be used to get the containers on the workers I expect most often?
Nothing special, you could use relaxLocality = false if you really want it on a specific node/rack.
> · What techniques should be used to reduce container allocation latency, if possible?
Typically, latency is very small - there are some ongoing enhancements to make it better.
hth,
Arun
> Thanks
> John
>
--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
--
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.