Having good out-of-box experience is desirable.

+1 on increasing the default.


On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> There was a recent discussion about whether to increase or indeed make
> configurable this kind of default fraction. I believe the suggestion
> there too was that 9-10% is a safer default.
>
> Advanced users can lower the resulting overhead value; it may still
> have to be increased in some cases, but a fatter default may make this
> kind of surprise less frequent.
>
> I'd support increasing the default; any other thoughts?
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> wrote:
> > hey,
> > running my first map-red like (meaning disk-to-disk, avoiding in memory
> > RDDs) computation in spark on yarn i immediately got bitten by a too low
> > spark.yarn.executor.memoryOverhead. however it took me about an hour to
> find
> > out this was the cause. at first i observed failing shuffles leading to
> > restarting of tasks, then i realized this was because executors could
> not be
> > reached, then i noticed in containers got shut down and reallocated in
> > resourcemanager logs (no mention of errors, it seemed the containers
> > finished their business and shut down successfully), and finally i found
> the
> > reason in nodemanager logs.
> >
> > i dont think this is a pleasent first experience. i realize
> > spark.yarn.executor.memoryOverhead needs to be set differently from
> > situation to situation. but shouldnt the default be a somewhat higher
> value
> > so that these errors are unlikely, and then the experts that are willing
> to
> > deal with these errors can tune it lower? so why not make the default 10%
> > instead of 7%? that gives something that works in most situations out of
> the
> > box (at the cost of being a little wasteful). it worked for me.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@spark.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to