[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-13718?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15192309#comment-15192309
]
Sean Owen commented on SPARK-13718:
-----------------------------------
What do you mean that it tries to assign without an available core (slot?). I
understand that if the data-local nodes are all busy, and the task is
I/O-intensive, the reading remotely is not only going to be slower but put more
load on the busy nodes. But, they may not be I/O-bound, just have all slots
occupied. Or the job may not be I/O-intensive at all in which case data
locality doesn't help. In this case, not scheduling the task is suboptimal.
But, when is it better to not schedule the task at all? you're saying it
creates a straggler, but all you're saying is things take a while when
resources are constrained. What is the better scheduling decision, even given
omniscience?
> Scheduler "creating" straggler node
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-13718
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-13718
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Scheduler, Spark Core
> Affects Versions: 1.3.1
> Environment: Spark 1.3.1
> MapR-FS
> Single Rack
> Standalone mode scheduling
> 8 node cluster
> 48 cores & 512 RAM / node
> Data Replication factor of 3
> Each Node has 4 Spark executors configured with 12 cores each and 22GB of RAM.
> Reporter: Ioannis Deligiannis
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: TestIssue.java, spark_struggler.jpg
>
>
> *Data:*
> * Assume an even distribution of data across the cluster with a replication
> factor of 3.
> * In-memory data are partitioned in 128 chunks (384 cores in total, i.e. 3
> requests can be executed concurrently(-ish) )
> *Action:*
> * Action is a simple sequence of map/filter/reduce.
> * The action operates upon and returns a small subset of data (following the
> full map over the data).
> * Data are 1 x cached serialized in memory (Kryo), so calling the action
> should not hit the disk under normal conditions.
> * Action network usage is low as it returns a small number of aggregated
> results and does not require excessive shuffling
> * Under low or moderate load, each action is expected to complete in less
> than 2 seconds
> *H/W Outlook*
> When the action is called in high numbers, initially the cluster CPU gets
> close to 100% (which is expected & intended).
> After a while, the cluster utilization reduces significantly with only one
> (struggler) node having 100% CPU and fully utilized network.
> *Diagnosis:*
> 1. Attached a profiler to the driver and executors to monitor GC or I/O
> issues and everything is normal under low or heavy usage.
> 2. Cluster network usage is very low
> 3. No issues on Spark UI except that tasks begin to move from LOCAL to ANY
> *Cause (Corrected as found details in code):*
> 1. Node 'H' is doing marginally more work than the rest (being a little
> slower and at almost 100% CPU)
> 2. Scheduler hits the default 3000 millis spark.locality.wait and assigns the
> task to other nodes
> 3. One of the nodes 'X' that accepted the task will try to access the data
> from node 'H' HDD. This adds Network I/O to node and also some extra CPU for
> I/O.
> 4. 'X' time to complete increases ~5x as it goes over Network
> 5. Eventually, every node will have a task that is waiting to fetch that
> specific partition from node 'H' so cluster is basically blocked on a single
> node
> What I managed to figure out from the code is that this is because if an RDD
> is cached, it will make use of BlockManager.getRemote() and will not
> recompute the DAG part that resulted in this RDD and hence always hit the
> node that has cached the RDD.
> * Proposed Fix *
> I have not worked with Scala & Spark source code enough to propose a code
> fix, but on a high level, when a task hits the 'spark.locality.wait' timeout,
> it could make use of a new configuration e.g.
> recomputeRddAfterLocalityTimeout instead of always trying to get the cached
> RDD. This would be very useful if it could also be manually set on the RDD.
> *Workaround*
> Playing with 'spark.locality.wait' values, there is a deterministic value
> depending on partitions and config where the problem ceases to exist.
> *PS1* : Don't have enough Scala skils to follow the issue or propose a fix,
> but I hope that this has enough information to make sense.
> *PS2* : Debugging this issue made me realize that there can be a lot of
> use-cases that trigger this behaviour
--
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
