A little more information:

We optimized our Map process quite a bit that now the Shuffle becomes the 
bottleneck.

1. There are 300 Map jobs (128M size block), each takes about 13 sec.
2. The Reducer starts running at a very late stage (80% maps are done)
3. copy 300 map outputs (shuffle) takes as long as the entire map process, 
although each map output is just about 50Kbytes





--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Alex Loddengaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Alex Loddengaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: slow shuffle
> To: core-user@hadoop.apache.org
> Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 11:43 AM
> These configuration options will be useful:
> 
> <property>
> >  
> <name>mapred.job.shuffle.merge.percent</name>
> >   <value>0.66</value>
> >   <description>The usage threshold at which an
> in-memory merge will be
> >   initiated, expressed as a percentage of the total
> memory allocated to
> >   storing in-memory map outputs, as defined by
> >   mapred.job.shuffle.input.buffer.percent.
> >   </description>
> > </property>
> >
> > <property>
> >  
> <name>mapred.job.shuffle.input.buffer.percent</name>
> >   <value>0.70</value>
> >   <description>The percentage of memory to be
> allocated from the maximum
> > heap
> >   size to storing map outputs during the shuffle.
> >   </description>
> > </property>
> >
> > <property>
> >  
> <name>mapred.job.reduce.input.buffer.percent</name>
> >   <value>0.0</value>
> >   <description>The percentage of memory-
> relative to the maximum heap size-
> > to
> >   retain map outputs during the reduce. When the
> shuffle is concluded, any
> >   remaining map outputs in memory must consume less
> than this threshold
> > before
> >   the reduce can begin.
> >   </description>
> > </property>
> >
> 
> How long did the shuffle take relative to the rest of the
> job?
> 
> Alex
> 
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Songting Chen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 
> > We encountered a bottleneck during the shuffle phase.
> However, there is not
> > much data to be shuffled across the network at all -
> total less than
> > 10MBytes (the combiner aggregated most of the data).
> >
> > Are there any parameters or anything we can tune to
> improve the shuffle
> > performance?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Songting
> >

Reply via email to