That is fairly out of date (we used to run some of our jobs on it ... But that is forked off 1.1 actually).
Regards Mridul On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Imran Rashid <iras...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Thanks for the explanations, makes sense. For the record looks like this > was worked on a while back (and maybe the work is even close to a > solution?) > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1476 > > and perhaps an independent solution was worked on here? > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1391 > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > cc dev list > > > > > > How are you saving the data? There are two relevant 2GB limits: > > > > 1. Caching > > > > 2. Shuffle > > > > > > For caching, a partition is turned into a single block. > > > > For shuffle, each map partition is partitioned into R blocks, where R = > > number of reduce tasks. It is unlikely a shuffle block > 2G, although it > > can still happen. > > > > I think the 2nd problem is easier to fix than the 1st, because we can > > handle that in the network transport layer. It'd require us to divide the > > transfer of a very large block into multiple smaller blocks. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Imran Rashid <iras...@cloudera.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> Michael, > >> > >> you are right, there is definitely some limit at 2GB. Here is a trivial > >> example to demonstrate it: > >> > >> import org.apache.spark.storage.StorageLevel > >> val d = sc.parallelize(1 to 1e6.toInt, 1).map{i => new > >> Array[Byte](5e3.toInt)}.persist(StorageLevel.DISK_ONLY) > >> d.count() > >> > >> It gives the same error you are observing. I was under the same > >> impression as Sean about the limits only being on blocks, not > partitions -- > >> but clearly that isn't the case here. > >> > >> I don't know the whole story yet, but I just wanted to at least let you > >> know you aren't crazy :) > >> At the very least this suggests that you might need to make smaller > >> partitions for now. > >> > >> Imran > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Michael Albert < > >> m_albert...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Greetings! > >>> > >>> Thanks for the response. > >>> > >>> Below is an example of the exception I saw. > >>> I'd rather not post code at the moment, so I realize it is completely > >>> unreasonable to ask for a diagnosis. > >>> However, I will say that adding a "partitionBy()" was the last change > >>> before this error was created. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks for your time and any thoughts you might have. > >>> > >>> Sincerely, > >>> Mike > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Exception in thread "main" org.apache.spark.SparkException: Job aborted > >>> due to stage failure: Task 4 in stage 5.0 failed 4 times, most recent > >>> failure: Lost task 4.3 in stage 5.0 (TID 6012, > >>> ip-10-171-0-31.ec2.internal): java.lang.RuntimeException: > >>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Size exceeds Integer.MAX_VALUE > >>> at sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.map(FileChannelImpl.java:828) > >>> at org.apache.spark.storage.DiskStore.getBytes(DiskStore.scala:123) > >>> at org.apache.spark.storage.DiskStore.getBytes(DiskStore.scala:132) > >>> at > >>> > org.apache.spark.storage.BlockManager.doGetLocal(BlockManager.scala:517) > >>> at > >>> > org.apache.spark.storage.BlockManager.getBlockData(BlockManager.scala:307) > >>> at > >>> > org.apache.spark.network.netty.NettyBlockRpcServer$$anonfun$2.apply(NettyBlockRpcServer.scala:57) > >>> at > >>> > org.apache.spark.network.netty.NettyBlockRpcServer$$anonfun$2.apply(NettyBlockRpcServer.scala:57) > >>> at > >>> > scala.collection.TraversableLike$$anonfun$map$1.apply(TraversableLike.scala:244) > >>> at > >>> > scala.collection.TraversableLike$$anonfun$map$1.apply(TraversableLike.scala:244) > >>> at > >>> > scala.collection.IndexedSeqOptimized$class.foreach(IndexedSeqOptimized.scala:33) > >>> at > scala.collection.mutable.ArrayOps$ofRef.foreach(ArrayOps.scala:108) > >>> at > >>> scala.collection.TraversableLike$class.map(TraversableLike.scala:244) > >>> at scala.collection.mutable.ArrayOps$ofRef.map(ArrayOps.scala:108) > >>> at > >>> > org.apache.spark.network.netty.NettyBlockRpcServer.receive(NettyBlockRpcServer.scala:57) > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com <javascript:;>> > >>> *To:* Michael Albert <m_albert...@yahoo.com <javascript:;>> > >>> *Cc:* "u...@spark.apache.org <javascript:;>" <u...@spark.apache.org > <javascript:;>> > >>> *Sent:* Monday, February 2, 2015 10:13 PM > >>> *Subject:* Re: 2GB limit for partitions? > >>> > >>> The limit is on blocks, not partitions. Partitions have many blocks. > >>> > >>> It sounds like you are creating very large values in memory, but I'm > >>> not sure given your description. You will run into problems if a > >>> single object is more than 2GB, of course. More of the stack trace > >>> might show what is mapping that much memory. > >>> > >>> If you simply want data into 1000 files it's a lot simpler. Just > >>> repartition into 1000 partitions and save the data. If you need more > >>> control over what goes into which partition, use a Partitioner, yes. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Michael Albert > >>> <m_albert...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >>> > Greetings! > >>> > > >>> > SPARK-1476 says that there is a 2G limit for "blocks". > >>> > Is this the same as a 2G limit for partitions (or approximately so?)? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > What I had been attempting to do is the following. > >>> > 1) Start with a moderately large data set (currently about 100GB, but > >>> > growing). > >>> > 2) Create about 1,000 files (yes, files) each representing a subset > of > >>> the > >>> > data. > >>> > > >>> > The current attempt I am working on is something like this. > >>> > 1) Do a "map" whose output key indicates which of the 1,000 files it > >>> will go > >>> > into and whose value is what I will want to stick into the file. > >>> > 2) Partition the data and use the body of mapPartition to open a file > >>> and > >>> > save the data. > >>> > > >>> > My apologies, this is actually embedded in a bigger mess, so I won't > >>> post > >>> > it. > >>> > > >>> > However, I get errors telling me that there is an > >>> "IllegalArgumentException: > >>> > Size exceeds Inter.MAX_VALUE", with sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.map at > >>> the > >>> > top of the stack. This leads me to think that I have hit the limit > or > >>> > partition and/or block size. > >>> > > >>> > Perhaps this is not a good way to do it? > >>> > > >>> > I suppose I could run 1,000 passes over the data, each time > collecting > >>> the > >>> > output for one of my 1,000 final files, but that seems likely to be > >>> > painfully slow to run. > >>> > > >>> > Am I missing something? > >>> > > >>> > Admittedly, this is an odd use case.... > >>> > > >>> > Thanks! > >>> > > >>> > Sincerely, > >>> > Mike Albert > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > <javascript:;> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@spark.apache.org > <javascript:;> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
