You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org by "Manikandan R (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2018/10/16 16:58:00 UTC
[jira] [Comment Edited] (YARN-7086) Release all containers
aynchronously
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7086?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16652065#comment-16652065 ]
Manikandan R edited comment on YARN-7086 at 10/16/18 4:57 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
[~jlowe] Reduced I/O's by removing unnecessary stdout printing and reducing log level. With these changes, ran the test cases again and measurements (in ms) between different runs for each cases doesn't differ drastically. In addition to three cases, since original intent of this Jira is to release container asynchronously to avoid potential deadlocks, added 4th case of releasing container asynchronously for every single container sequentially just to understand the difference between multiple container list traversal vs handling single container separately. Based on the below results, 2nd case - multiple container list traversal is not only reduce the performance but increase the complexity of the code. With 4th case, code changes are simple and clean. Though 4th case time taken is high compared to 1st & 3rd case, can we pick 4th case given that we want to release containers async? Thoughts?
||Run||Existing code||With Patch
(Async release + multiple container list traversal)||With Patch
(Not Async release + multiple container list traversal) ||With Patch
(Async Release for each container separately)||
|1|496|1430 |444|1067|
|2|490|1604 |453 |1401|
|3|427|1133 |438|972|
|4|482|1342 |429 |1228|
|5|459|1106 |412 |1176|
|Average of 5 runs|470.8|1323|435.2|1168.8|
was (Author: manirajv06@gmail.com):
[~jlowe] Reduced I/O's by removing unnecessary stdout printing and reducing log level. With these changes, ran the test cases again and measurements (in ms) between different runs for each cases doesn't differ drastically. In addition to three cases, since original intent of this Jira is to release container asynchronously, added 4th case of releasing container asynchronously for every single container sequentially just to understand the difference between multiple container list traversal vs handling single container separately. Based on the below results, 2nd case - multiple container list traversal is not only reduce the performance but increase the complexity of the code. With 4th case, code changes are simple and clean. Though 4th case time taken is high compared to 1st & 3rd case, can we pick 4th case given that we want to release containers async? Thoughts?
||Run||Existing code||With Patch
(Async release + multiple container list traversal)||With Patch
(Not Async release + multiple container list traversal) ||With Patch
(Async Release for each container separately)||
|1|496|1430 |444|1067|
|2|490|1604 |453 |1401|
|3|427|1133 |438|972|
|4|482|1342 |429 |1228|
|5|459|1106 |412 |1176|
|Average of 5 runs|470.8|1323|435.2|1168.8|
> Release all containers aynchronously
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-7086
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7086
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: resourcemanager
> Reporter: Arun Suresh
> Assignee: Manikandan R
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: YARN-7086.001.patch, YARN-7086.002.patch, YARN-7086.Perf-test-case.patch
>
>
> We have noticed in production two situations that can cause deadlocks and cause scheduling of new containers to come to a halt, especially with regard to applications that have a lot of live containers:
> # When these applicaitons release these containers in bulk.
> # When these applications terminate abruptly due to some failure, the scheduler releases all its live containers in a loop.
> To handle the issues mentioned above, we have a patch in production to make sure ALL container releases happen asynchronously - and it has served us well.
> Opening this JIRA to gather feedback on if this is a good idea generally (cc [~leftnoteasy], [~jlowe], [~curino], [~kasha], [~subru], [~roniburd])
> BTW, In YARN-6251, we already have an asyncReleaseContainer() in the AbstractYarnScheduler and a corresponding scheduler event, which is currently used specifically for the container-update code paths (where the scheduler realeases temp containers which it creates for the update)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org