If you set giraph.maxInMemoryPartitions accordingly to a number larger to that max(), and you're not setting stickyPartitions, then my question is whether there are at least that number of partitions in the worker. Can you validate whether there are enough partitions in the worker. In other terms, assuming you're using hash partitioner, how many workers are you using?
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> wrote: > No. Should I have done that? > > > On 02/12/2014 02:57 PM, Claudio Martella wrote: > >> did you also set stickyPartitions to some numbers? >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Updating documentation is never a bad idea :) >>> >>> I reran my test with giraph.maxPartitionsInMemory > >>> max(giraph.numComputeThreads,giraph.numInputThreads,giraph. >>> numOutputThreads) >>> and still got the same behavior. I'll wait for the updated patch. >>> >>> Get well Armando! >>> >>> >>> On 02/12/2014 12:53 PM, Armando Miraglia wrote: >>> >>> >>>> btw: I as also thinking to update the documentation page on the Giraph >>>> website to better explain the sticky partition logic. What do you >>>> think? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Armando >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:50:25PM +0100, Armando Miraglia wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed, yesterday I was fixing a couple of things and I think I missed >>>>> a >>>>> case that I have to exclude. Sorry for this, I have fever at the >>>>> momento >>>>> so it could be that yesterday I was under the effect of the fever :D >>>>> >>>>> I checked that the tests were passing but I think a missed something. >>>>> >>>>> I'll come back to you very soon >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:26:12AM +0100, Claudio Martella wrote: >>>>> >>>>> the problem is that you're running with more threads than in-memory >>>>>> partitions. increase the number of partitions in memory to be at least >>>>>> the >>>>>> number of threads. i have no time right now to check the latest code, >>>>>> but >>>>>> you should not set the number of stickypartitions by hand. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I ran a first test with the new DiskBackedPartitionStore and it >>>>>> didn't >>>>>> >>>>>>> work for me unfortunately. The job never leaves the input phase >>>>>>> (superstep >>>>>>> -1). I sshd onto one of the workers and it seems to wait forever on >>>>>>> DiskBackedPartitionStore.getOrCreatePartition: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> java.lang.Thread.State: BLOCKED (on object monitor) >>>>>>> at org.apache.giraph.partition.DiskBackedPartitionStore. >>>>>>> getOrCreatePartition(DiskBackedPartitionStore.java:226) >>>>>>> - waiting to lock <0x00000000aeb757c8> (a >>>>>>> org.apache.giraph.partition.DiskBackedPartitionStore$MetaPartition) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are the custom arguments for my run, let me know if I should do >>>>>>> another run with a different config. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> giraph.oneToAllMsgSending=true >>>>>>> giraph.isStaticGraph=true >>>>>>> giraph.numComputeThreads=15 >>>>>>> giraph.numInputThreads=15 >>>>>>> giraph.numOutputThreads=15 >>>>>>> giraph.maxNumberOfSupersteps=30 >>>>>>> giraph.useOutOfCoreGraph=true >>>>>>> giraph.stickyPartitions=5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also ran the job without using oneToAllMsgSending and saw the same >>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 02/12/2014 12:44 AM, Claudio Martella wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please give it a test. i've been working on this with armando. i'll >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> give a >>>>>>>> review, but we have been testing it for while. we'd really >>>>>>>> appreciate >>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>> somebody else could run some additional tests as well. thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Sebastian Schelter < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll test the patch from GIRAPH-825 this week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 02/12/2014 12:10 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Given how big the diff here are: >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GIRAPH-825 >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GIRAPH-840 >>>>>>>>>> I am wondering whether it is realistic >>>>>>>>>> to have them in 1.1.0. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would appreciate folks chiming in. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Roman. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Claudio Martella >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> > -- Claudio Martella
