[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-15796?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Apache Spark reassigned SPARK-15796:
------------------------------------

    Assignee: Apache Spark

> Reduce spark.memory.fraction default to avoid overrunning old gen in JVM 
> default config
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SPARK-15796
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-15796
>             Project: Spark
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.6.0, 1.6.1
>            Reporter: Gabor Feher
>            Assignee: Apache Spark
>            Priority: Minor
>
> While debugging performance issues in a Spark program, I've found a simple 
> way to slow down Spark 1.6 significantly by filling the RDD memory cache. 
> This seems to be a regression, because setting 
> "spark.memory.useLegacyMode=true" fixes the problem. Here is a repro that is 
> just a simple program that fills the memory cache of Spark using a 
> MEMORY_ONLY cached RDD (but of course this comes up in more complex 
> situations, too):
> {code}
> import org.apache.spark.SparkContext
> import org.apache.spark.SparkConf
> import org.apache.spark.storage.StorageLevel
> object CacheDemoApp { 
>   def main(args: Array[String]) {
>     val conf = new SparkConf().setAppName("Cache Demo Application")           
>                             
>     val sc = new SparkContext(conf)
>     val startTime = System.currentTimeMillis()
>                                                                               
>                             
>     val cacheFiller = sc.parallelize(1 to 500000000, 1000)                    
>                             
>       .mapPartitionsWithIndex {
>         case (ix, it) =>
>           println(s"CREATE DATA PARTITION ${ix}")                             
>                             
>           val r = new scala.util.Random(ix)
>           it.map(x => (r.nextLong, r.nextLong))
>       }
>     cacheFiller.persist(StorageLevel.MEMORY_ONLY)
>     cacheFiller.foreach(identity)
>     val finishTime = System.currentTimeMillis()
>     val elapsedTime = (finishTime - startTime) / 1000
>     println(s"TIME= $elapsedTime s")
>   }
> }
> {code}
> If I call it the following way, it completes in around 5 minutes on my 
> Laptop, while often stopping for slow Full GC cycles. I can also see with 
> jvisualvm (Visual GC plugin) that the old generation of JVM is 96.8% filled.
> {code}
> sbt package
> ~/spark-1.6.0/bin/spark-submit \
>   --class "CacheDemoApp" \
>   --master "local[2]" \
>   --driver-memory 3g \
>   --driver-java-options "-XX:+PrintGCDetails" \
>   target/scala-2.10/simple-project_2.10-1.0.jar
> {code}
> If I add any one of the below flags, then the run-time drops to around 40-50 
> seconds and the difference is coming from the drop in GC times:
>   --conf "spark.memory.fraction=0.6"
> OR
>   --conf "spark.memory.useLegacyMode=true"
> OR
>   --driver-java-options "-XX:NewRatio=3"
> All the other cache types except for DISK_ONLY produce similar symptoms. It 
> looks like that the problem is that the amount of data Spark wants to store 
> long-term ends up being larger than the old generation size in the JVM and 
> this triggers Full GC repeatedly.
> I did some research:
> * In Spark 1.6, spark.memory.fraction is the upper limit on cache size. It 
> defaults to 0.75.
> * In Spark 1.5, spark.storage.memoryFraction is the upper limit in cache 
> size. It defaults to 0.6 and...
> * http://spark.apache.org/docs/1.5.2/configuration.html even says that it 
> shouldn't be bigger than the size of the old generation.
> * On the other hand, OpenJDK's default NewRatio is 2, which means an old 
> generation size of 66%. Hence the default value in Spark 1.6 contradicts this 
> advice.
> http://spark.apache.org/docs/1.6.1/tuning.html recommends that if the old 
> generation is running close to full, then setting 
> spark.memory.storageFraction to a lower value should help. I have tried with 
> spark.memory.storageFraction=0.1, but it still doesn't fix the issue. This is 
> not a surprise: http://spark.apache.org/docs/1.6.1/configuration.html 
> explains that storageFraction is not an upper-limit but a lower limit-like 
> thing on the size of Spark's cache. The real upper limit is 
> spark.memory.fraction.
> To sum up my questions/issues:
> * At least http://spark.apache.org/docs/1.6.1/tuning.html should be fixed. 
> Maybe the old generation size should also be mentioned in configuration.html 
> near spark.memory.fraction.
> * Is it a goal for Spark to support heavy caching with default parameters and 
> without GC breakdown? If so, then better default values are needed.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org

Reply via email to