Re: [SparkScore] Performance portal for Apache Spark
This looks really awesome. On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Huang, Jie wrote: > Hi All > > We are happy to announce Performance portal for Apache Spark > http://01org.github.io/sparkscore/ ! > > The Performance Portal for Apache Spark provides performance data on the > Spark upsteam to the community to help identify issues, better understand > performance differentials between versions, and help Spark customers get > across the finish line faster. The Performance Portal generates two > reports, regular (weekly) report and release based regression test report. > We are currently using two benchmark suites which include HiBench ( > http://github.com/intel-bigdata/HiBench) and Spark-perf ( > https://github.com/databricks/spark-perf ). We welcome and look forward > to your suggestions and feedbacks. More information and details provided > below > Abount Performance Portal for Apache Spark > > Our goal is to work with the Apache Spark community to further enhance the > scalability and reliability of the Apache Spark. The data available on this > site allows community members and potential Spark customers to closely > track performance trend of the Apache Spark. Ultimately, we hope that this > project will help community to fix performance issue quickly, thus > providing better Apache spark code to end customers. The current workloads > used in the benchmarking include HiBench (a benchmark suite to evaluate big > data framework like Hadoop MR, Spark from Intel) and Spark-perf (a > performance testing framework for Apache Spark from Databricks). Additional > benchmarks will be added as they become available > Description > -- > > Each data point represents each workload runtime percent compared with the > previous week. Different lines represents different workloads running on > spark yarn-client mode. > Hardware > -- > > CPU type: Intel® Xeon® CPU E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70GHz > Memory: 128GB > NIC: 10GbE > Disk(s): 8 x 1TB SATA HDD > Software > -- > > JAVA ver sion: 1.8.0_25 > Hadoop version: 2.5.0-CDH5.3.2 > HiBench version: 4.0 > Spark on yarn-client mode > Cluster > -- > > 1 node for Master > 10 nodes for Slave > Summary > > The lower percent the better performance. > -- > > *Group* > > *ww19 * > > *ww20 * > > *ww22 * > > *ww23 * > > *ww24 * > > *ww25 * > > HiBench > > 9.1% > > 6.6% > > 6.0% > > 7.9% > > -6.5% > > -3.1% > > spark-perf > > 4.1% > > 4.4% > > -1.8% > > 4.1% > > -4.7% > > -4.6% > > > *Y-Axis: normalized completion time; X-Axis: Work Week. * > > * The commit number can be found in the result table. The performance > score for each workload is normalized based on the elapsed time for 1.2 > release.The lower the better.* > HiBench > -- > > *JOB* > > *ww19 * > > *ww20 * > > *ww22 * > > *ww23 * > > *ww24 * > > *ww25 * > > *commit* > > *489700c8 * > > *8e3822a0 * > > *530efe3e * > > *90c60692 * > > *db81b9d8 * > > *4eb48ed1 * > > sleep > > % > > % > > -2.1% > > -2.9% > > -4.1% > > 12.8% > > wordcount > > 17.6% > > 11.4% > > 8.0% > > 8.3% > > -18.6% > > -10.9% > > kmeans > > 92.1% > > 61.5% > > 72.1% > > 92.9% > > 86.9% > > 95.8% > > scan > > -4.9% > > -7.2% > > % > > -1.1% > > -25.5% > > -21.0% > > bayes > > -24.3% > > -20.1% > > -18.3% > > -11.1% > > -29.7% > > -31.3% > > aggregation > > 5.6% > > 10.5% > > % > > 9.2% > > -15.3% > > -15.0% > > join > > 4.5% > > 1.2% > > % > > 1.0% > > -12.7% > > -13.9% > > sort > > -3.3% > > -0.5% > > -11.9% > > -12.5% > > -17.5% > > -17.3% > > pagerank > > 2.2% > > 3.2% > > 4.0% > > 2.9% > > -11.4% > > -13.0% > > terasort > > -7.1% > > -0.2% > > -9.5% > > -7.3% > > -16.7% > > -17.0% > > Comments: null means no such workload running or workload failed in this > time. > > > *Y-Axis: normalized completion time; X-Axis: Work Week. * > > * The commit number can be found in the result table. The performance > score for each workload is normalized based on the elapsed time for 1.2 > release.The lower the better.* > spark-perf > -- > > *JOB* > > *ww19 * > > *ww20 * > > *ww22 * > > *ww23 * > > *ww24 * > > *ww25 * > > *commit* > > *489700c8 * > > *8e3822a0 * > > *530efe3e * > > *90c60692 * > > *db81b9d8 * > > *4eb48ed1 * > > agg > > 13.2% > > 7.0% > > % > > 18.3% > > 5.2% > > 2.5% > > agg-int > > 16.4% > > 21.2% > > % > > 9.6% > > 4.0% > > 8.2% > > agg-naive > > 4.3% > > -2.4% > > % > > -0.8% > > -6.7% > > -6.8 % > > scheduling > > -6.1% > > -8.9% > > -14.5% > > -2.1% > > -6.4% > > -6.5% > > count-filter > > 4.1% > > 1.0% > > 6.6% > > 6.8% > > -10.2% > > -10.4% > > count > > 4.8% > > 4.6% > > 6.7% > > 8.0% > > -7.3% > > -7.0% > > sort > > -8.1% > > -2.5% > > -6.2% > > -7.0% > > -14.6% > > -14.4% > > sort-int > > 4.5% > > 15.3% > > -1.6% > > -0.1% > > -1.5% > > -2.2% > > Comments: null means no such workload running or workload failed in this > time. > > > *Y-Axis: normalized completion t
Re: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26
Hi, Jie, Thank you very much for this work! Very helpful! I just would like to confirm that I understand the numbers correctly: if we take the running time of 1.2 release as 100s 9.1% - means the running time is 109.1 s? -4% - means it comes 96s? If that’s the true meaning of the numbers, what happened to k-means in HiBench? Best, -- Nan Zhu http://codingcat.me On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Huang, Jie wrote: > Intel® Xeon® CPU E5-2697
RE: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26
Correct. Your calculation is right! We have been aware of that kmeans performance drop also. According to our observation, it is caused by some unbalanced executions among different tasks. Even we used the same test data between different versions (i.e., not caused by the data skew). And the corresponding run time information has been shared with Xiangrui. Now he is also helping to identify the root cause altogether. Thank you && Best Regards, Grace （Huang Jie) From: Nan Zhu [mailto:zhunanmcg...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:59 PM To: Huang, Jie Cc: user@spark.apache.org; d...@spark.apache.org Subject: Re: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26 Hi, Jie, Thank you very much for this work! Very helpful! I just would like to confirm that I understand the numbers correctly: if we take the running time of 1.2 release as 100s 9.1% - means the running time is 109.1 s? -4% - means it comes 96s? If that’s the true meaning of the numbers, what happened to k-means in HiBench? Best, -- Nan Zhu http://codingcat.me On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Huang, Jie wrote: Intel® Xeon® CPU E5-2697
Re: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26
Thank you, Jie! Very nice work! -- Nan Zhu http://codingcat.me On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Huang, Jie wrote: > Correct. Your calculation is right! > > We have been aware of that kmeans performance drop also. According to our > observation, it is caused by some unbalanced executions among different > tasks. Even we used the same test data between different versions (i.e., not > caused by the data skew). > > And the corresponding run time information has been shared with Xiangrui. Now > he is also helping to identify the root cause altogether. > > Thank you && Best Regards, > Grace （Huang Jie) > > From: Nan Zhu [mailto:zhunanmcg...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:59 PM > To: Huang, Jie > Cc: user@spark.apache.org (mailto:user@spark.apache.org); > d...@spark.apache.org (mailto:d...@spark.apache.org) > Subject: Re: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26 > > Hi, Jie, > > > > Thank you very much for this work! Very helpful! > > > > I just would like to confirm that I understand the numbers correctly: if we > take the running time of 1.2 release as 100s > > > > 9.1% - means the running time is 109.1 s? > > > > -4% - means it comes 96s? > > > > If that’s the true meaning of the numbers, what happened to k-means in > HiBench? > > > > Best, > > > > -- > > Nan Zhu > > http://codingcat.me > > > > > On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Huang, Jie wrote: > > Intel® Xeon® CPU E5-2697 > > > > > > > >
RE: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26
Thanks. In general, we can see a stable trend in Spark master branch and latest release. And we are also considering to add more benchmarks/workloads into this automation perf tool. Any comment and feedback is warmly welcomed. Thank you && Best Regards, Grace （Huang Jie) From: Nan Zhu [mailto:zhunanmcg...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 8:21 PM To: Huang, Jie Cc: user@spark.apache.org; d...@spark.apache.org Subject: Re: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26 Thank you, Jie! Very nice work! -- Nan Zhu http://codingcat.me On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Huang, Jie wrote: Correct. Your calculation is right! We have been aware of that kmeans performance drop also. According to our observation, it is caused by some unbalanced executions among different tasks. Even we used the same test data between different versions (i.e., not caused by the data skew). And the corresponding run time information has been shared with Xiangrui. Now he is also helping to identify the root cause altogether. Thank you && Best Regards, Grace （Huang Jie) From: Nan Zhu [mailto:zhunanmcg...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:59 PM To: Huang, Jie Cc: user@spark.apache.org<mailto:user@spark.apache.org>; d...@spark.apache.org<mailto:d...@spark.apache.org> Subject: Re: [SparkScore]Performance portal for Apache Spark - WW26 Hi, Jie, Thank you very much for this work! Very helpful! I just would like to confirm that I understand the numbers correctly: if we take the running time of 1.2 release as 100s 9.1% - means the running time is 109.1 s? -4% - means it comes 96s? If that’s the true meaning of the numbers, what happened to k-means in HiBench? Best, -- Nan Zhu http://codingcat.me On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Huang, Jie wrote: Intel® Xeon® CPU E5-2697
