I agree with Pramod that we should go with 2b and we are already doing node locality so you can use that feature. Regarding 3, do we need to support relaxed anti_affinity. Anti_affinity will mostly be used where user wants such segregation of operators on different nodes for his/her App.
Thanks - Gaurav > On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry I meant distro agnostic (without the not) in the first sentence. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Isha this sounds great. 2 a. sounds like a good approach that is not >> distro agnostic. How about also supporting a minor variation of it as an >> option where it greedily gets the total number of containers and discards >> ones it can't use and repeats the process for the remaining till everything >> has been allocated. Also does it make sense to support anti-cluster >> affinity? >> >> Thanks >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Isha Arkatkar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We want add support for Anti-affinity in Apex to allow applications to >>> launch specific physical operators on different nodes(APEXCORE-10 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-10>). Want to request >>> your >>> suggestions/ideas for the same! >>> >>> The reasons for using anti-affinity in operators could be: to ensure >>> reliability, for performance reasons (such as application may not want 2 >>> i/o intensive operators to land on the same node to improve performance) >>> or >>> for some application specific constraints(for example, 2 partitions >>> cannot >>> be run on the same node since they use same port number). This is the >>> general rationale for adding Anti-affinity support. >>> >>> Since, Yarn does not support anti-affinity yet (YARN-1042 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1042>), we need to implement >>> the logic in AM. Wanted to get your views on following aspects for this >>> implementation: >>> >>> *1. How to specify anti-affinity for physical operators/partitions in >>> application:* >>> One way for this is to have an attribute for setting anti-affinity at >>> the logical operator context. And an operator can set this attribute with >>> list of operator names which should not be collocated. >>> Consider dag with 3 operators: >>> TestOperator o1 = dag.addOperator("O1", new TestOperator()); >>> TestOperator o2 = dag.addOperator("O2", new TestOperator()); >>> TestOperator o3 = dag.addOperator("O3", new TestOperator()); >>> >>> To set anti-affinity for O1 operator: >>> dag.setAttribute(o1, OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY, new >>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2", "O3"))); >>> This would mean O1 should not be allocated on nodes containing >>> operators O2 and O3. This applies to all allocated partitions of O1, O2, >>> O3. >>> >>> Also, if same operator name is part of anti-affinity list, it means >>> partitions of the operator should not be allocated on the same node. >>> example: >>> dag.setAttribute(o2, OperatorContext.ANTI_AFFINITY, new >>> ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList("O2"))); >>> This indicates anti-affinity between all partitions of O2. i.e. all >>> partitions of O2 should be launched on different nodes. >>> >>> Based on the anti-affinity attribute specified for logical operator, >>> during physical plan creation, we can add this list to each PTContainer. >>> This in turn will be available for Stram for sending container requests >>> accordingly. >>> >>> Please suggest if there is a better way to express this intent. >>> >>> *2. How to implement anti-affinity in AM* >>> There are 2 ways we can implement this: >>> * a. Blacklisting of nodes: *We can group the physical container >>> requests >>> based on anti-affinity requirements and send allocation requests for >>> containers in groups. After first group is done, blacklist the nodes >>> before >>> sending second group of container requests. This will ensure that the >>> containers with anti-affinity requirements will be allocated on different >>> nodes. >>> * b. Node specific container request: *Explore and create a map of nodes >>> present in the cluster and send allocation request for container on a >>> specific node, honoring anti-affinity. There are couple of open Yarn Jiras >>> for node specific container requests: YARN-1412 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1412>, YARN-2027 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2027>. So, need to check if >>> this is a plausible approach. >>> >>> *3. Strict Vs Relaxed anti-affinity* >>> Depending on cluster resources availability, it may not be possible to >>> honor all anti-affinity requirements specified. >>> *Strict Anti-affinity:* AM will keep trying to allocate containers as per >>> anti-affinity requirements indefinitely. This behavior will be similar to >>> how an application shows in ACCEPTED state, till resources are available >>> to >>> launch in cluster. >>> *Relaxed Anti-affinity:* AM will drop the anti-affinity constraint after a >>> certain timeout. >>> >>> We need a way to set this attribute through application. (Either in >>> operator context or in DAGContext for application wide setting.) >>> >>> *4. How do we unit test this feature* >>> We could use Mockito for mocking Yarn behaviors and test only AM >>> implementation, since it may not be easy to simulate some scenarios >>> manually in cluster. Please suggest if there are better ways to test this. >>> >>> Please suggest improvements or any other ideas on all of the above. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Isha >>> >>> P.S. Sorry for long email. Please let me know if I should start separate >>> threads for any of the above points. >>> >> >>
