which is why i explicitly configure executor memory on the client. Although even that interpretation depends on the resource manager A LOT it seems.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Pat Ferrel <[email protected]> wrote: > The submit code is the only place that documents which are needed by > clients AFAICT. It is pretty complicated and heavily laden with checks for > which cluster manager is being used. I’d feel a lot better if we were using > it. There is no way any of us are going to be able to test on all those > configurations. > > spark-env.sh is mostly for launching the cluster not the client but there > seem to be exceptions like executor memory. > > > On Nov 11, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote: > > these files if i read it correctly are for spawning yet another process. i > don't see how it may work for the shell. > > I am also not convinced that spark-env is important for the client. > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Pat Ferrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I was thinking -Dx=y too, seems like a good idea. > > > > But we should also support setting them the way Spark documents in > > spark-env.sh and the two links Andrew found may solve that in a > > maintainable way. Maybe we get the SparkConf from a new mahoutSparkConf > > function, which handles all env supplied setup. For the drivers it can be > > done in the base class allowing and CLI overrides later. Then the > SparkConf > > is finally passed in to mahoutSparkContext where as little as possible is > > changed in the conf. > > > > I’ll look at this for the drivers. Should be easy to add to the shell. > > > > On Nov 11, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > IMO you just need to modify `mahout spark-shell` to propagate -Dx=y > > parameters to the java startup call and all should be fine. > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Andrew Palumbo <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> I've run into this problem starting $ mahout shell-script. i.e. needing > >> to set the spark.kryoserializer.buffer.mb and spark.akka.frameSize. > > I've > >> been temporarily hard coding them for now while developing. > >> > >> I'm just getting familiar with What you've done with the CLI drivers. > > For > >> #2 could we borrow option parsing code/methods from spark [1] [2] at > each > >> (spark) release and somehow add this to > >> MahoutOptionParser.parseSparkOptions? > >> > >> I'll hopefully be doing some CLI work soon and have a better > > understanding. > >> > >> [1] > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/deploy/SparkSubmitDriverBootstrapper.scala > >> [2] > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/deploy/SparkSubmit.scala > >> > >>> From: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Spark options > >>> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:48:59 -0800 > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> > >>> Spark has a launch script as hadoop does. We use the Hadoop launcher > >> script but not the Spark one. When starting up your Spark cluster there > > is > >> a spark-env.sh script that can set a bunch of environment variables. In > > our > >> own mahoutSparkContext function, which takes the place of the Spark > > submit > >> script and launcher we don’t account for most of the environment > > variables. > >>> > >>> Unless I missed something this means most of the documented options > will > >> be ignored unless a user of Mahout parses and sets them in their own > >> SparkConf. The Mahout CLI drivers don’t do this for all possible > options, > >> only supporting a few like job name and spark.executor.memory. > >>> > >>> The question is how to best handle these Spark options. There seem to > be > >> two options: > >>> 1) use sparks launch mechanism for drivers but allow some to be > >> overridden in the CLI > >>> 2) add parsing the env for options and set up the SparkConf default in > >> mahoutSparkContext with those variables. > >>> > >>> The downside of #2 is that as variables change we’ll have to reflect > >> those in our code. I forget why #1 is not an option but Dmitriy has been > >> consistently against this—in any case it would mean a fair bit of > >> refactoring I believe. > >>> > >>> Any opinions or corrections? > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
