Hi Xi Shen

The warning message wasn’t  removed after I had upgraded my java to V8,
but  anyway I appreciate your kind help.

Since it’s just a WARN, I suppose I can bear with it and nothing bad would 
really happen. Am I right?


6/10/18 11:12:42 WARN RandomForest: Tree learning is using approximately 
268437864 bytes per iteration, which exceeds requested limit 
maxMemoryUsage=268435456. This allows splitting 80088 nodes in this iteration.
16/10/18 11:13:07 WARN RandomForest: Tree learning is using approximately 
268436304 bytes per iteration, which exceeds requested limit 
maxMemoryUsage=268435456. This allows splitting 80132 nodes in this iteration.
16/10/18 11:13:32 WARN RandomForest: Tree learning is using approximately 
268437816 bytes per iteration, which exceeds requested limit 
maxMemoryUsage=268435456. This allows splitting 80082 nodes in this iteration.



发件人: zhangjianxin 
<zhangjian...@didichuxing.com<mailto:zhangjian...@didichuxing.com>>
日期: 2016年10月17日 星期一 下午8:16
至: Xi Shen <davidshe...@gmail.com<mailto:davidshe...@gmail.com>>
抄送: "user@spark.apache.org<mailto:user@spark.apache.org>" 
<user@spark.apache.org<mailto:user@spark.apache.org>>
主题: Re: Did anybody come across this random-forest issue with spark 2.0.1.

Hi Xi Shen

Not yet.  For the moment my idk for spark is still V7. Thanks for your 
reminding, I will try it out by upgrading java.

发件人: Xi Shen <davidshe...@gmail.com<mailto:davidshe...@gmail.com>>
日期: 2016年10月17日 星期一 下午8:00
至: zhangjianxin 
<zhangjian...@didichuxing.com<mailto:zhangjian...@didichuxing.com>>, 
"user@spark.apache.org<mailto:user@spark.apache.org>" 
<user@spark.apache.org<mailto:user@spark.apache.org>>
主题: Re: Did anybody come across this random-forest issue with spark 2.0.1.

Did you also upgrade to Java from v7 to v8?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:19 PM 张建鑫(市场部) 
<zhangjian...@didichuxing.com<mailto:zhangjian...@didichuxing.com>> wrote:

Did anybody encounter this problem before and why it happens , how to solve it? 
 The same training data and same source code work in 1.6.1, however become 
lousy in 2.0.1

[cid:BD0EFC31-F4CE-421F-BC94-79EF3BE09D60]
--

Thanks,
David S.

Reply via email to