Very interesting and relevant thread for production level usage of spark. @Arun, can you kindly confirm if Daniel’s suggestion helped your usecase?
Thanks, Kapil Malik | kma...@adobe.com<mailto:kma...@adobe.com> | 33430 / 8800836581 From: Daniel Mahler [mailto:dmah...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 April 2015 15:42 To: Arun Luthra Cc: Aaron Davidson; Paweł Szulc; Burak Yavuz; user@spark.apache.org Subject: Re: Problem getting program to run on 15TB input Sometimes a large number of partitions leads to memory problems. Something like val rdd1 = sc.textFile(file1).coalesce(500). ... val rdd2 = sc.textFile(file2).coalesce(500). ... may help. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Arun Luthra <arun.lut...@gmail.com<mailto:arun.lut...@gmail.com>> wrote: Everything works smoothly if I do the 99%-removal filter in Hive first. So, all the baggage from garbage collection was breaking it. Is there a way to filter() out 99% of the data without having to garbage collect 99% of the RDD? On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Arun Luthra <arun.lut...@gmail.com<mailto:arun.lut...@gmail.com>> wrote: I tried a shorter simper version of the program, with just 1 RDD, essentially it is: sc.textFile(..., N).map().filter().map( blah => (id, 1L)).reduceByKey().saveAsTextFile(...) Here is a typical GC log trace from one of the yarn container logs: 54.040: [GC [PSYoungGen: 9176064K->28206K(10704896K)] 9176064K->28278K(35171840K), 0.0234420 secs] [Times: user=0.15 sys=0.01, real=0.02 secs] 77.864: [GC [PSYoungGen: 9204270K->150553K(10704896K)] 9204342K->150641K(35171840K), 0.0423020 secs] [Times: user=0.30 sys=0.26, real=0.04 secs] 79.485: [GC [PSYoungGen: 9326617K->333519K(10704896K)] 9326705K->333615K(35171840K), 0.0774990 secs] [Times: user=0.35 sys=1.28, real=0.08 secs] 92.974: [GC [PSYoungGen: 9509583K->193370K(10704896K)] 9509679K->193474K(35171840K), 0.0241590 secs] [Times: user=0.35 sys=0.11, real=0.02 secs] 114.842: [GC [PSYoungGen: 9369434K->123577K(10704896K)] 9369538K->123689K(35171840K), 0.0201000 secs] [Times: user=0.31 sys=0.00, real=0.02 secs] 117.277: [GC [PSYoungGen: 9299641K->135459K(11918336K)] 9299753K->135579K(36385280K), 0.0244820 secs] [Times: user=0.19 sys=0.25, real=0.02 secs] So ~9GB is getting GC'ed every few seconds. Which seems like a lot. Question: The filter() is removing 99% of the data. Does this 99% of the data get GC'ed? Now, I was able to finally get to reduceByKey() by reducing the number of executor-cores (to 2), based on suggestions at http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/java-lang-OutOfMemoryError-java-lang-OutOfMemoryError-GC-overhead-limit-exceeded-td9036.html . This makes everything before reduceByKey() run pretty smoothly. I ran this with more executor-memory and less executors (most important thing was fewer executor-cores): --num-executors 150 \ --driver-memory 15g \ --executor-memory 110g \ --executor-cores 32 \ But then, reduceByKey() fails with: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Arun Luthra <arun.lut...@gmail.com<mailto:arun.lut...@gmail.com>> wrote: The Spark UI names the line number and name of the operation (repartition in this case) that it is performing. Only if this information is wrong (just a possibility), could it have started groupByKey already. I will try to analyze the amount of skew in the data by using reduceByKey (or simply countByKey) which is relatively inexpensive. For the purposes of this algorithm I can simply log and remove keys with huge counts, before doing groupByKey. On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Aaron Davidson <ilike...@gmail.com<mailto:ilike...@gmail.com>> wrote: All stated symptoms are consistent with GC pressure (other nodes timeout trying to connect because of a long stop-the-world), quite possibly due to groupByKey. groupByKey is a very expensive operation as it may bring all the data for a particular partition into memory (in particular, it cannot spill values for a single key, so if you have a single very skewed key you can get behavior like this). On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Paweł Szulc <paul.sz...@gmail.com<mailto:paul.sz...@gmail.com>> wrote: But groupbykey will repartition according to numer of keys as I understand how it works. How do you know that you haven't reached the groupbykey phase? Are you using a profiler or do yoi base that assumption only on logs? sob., 28 lut 2015, 8:12 PM Arun Luthra użytkownik <arun.lut...@gmail.com<mailto:arun.lut...@gmail.com>> napisał: A correction to my first post: There is also a repartition right before groupByKey to help avoid too-many-open-files error: rdd2.union(rdd1).map(...).filter(...).repartition(15000).groupByKey().map(...).flatMap(...).saveAsTextFile() On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Arun Luthra <arun.lut...@gmail.com<mailto:arun.lut...@gmail.com>> wrote: The job fails before getting to groupByKey. I see a lot of timeout errors in the yarn logs, like: 15/02/28 12:47:16 WARN util.AkkaUtils: Error sending message in 1 attempts akka.pattern.AskTimeoutException: Timed out and 15/02/28 12:47:49 WARN util.AkkaUtils: Error sending message in 2 attempts java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException: Futures timed out after [30 seconds] and some of these are followed by: 15/02/28 12:48:02 ERROR executor.CoarseGrainedExecutorBackend: Driver Disassociated [akka.tcp://sparkExecutor@...] -> [akka.tcp://sparkDriver@...] disassociated! Shutting down. 15/02/28 12:48:02 ERROR executor.Executor: Exception in task 421027.0 in stage 1.0 (TID 336601) java.io.FileNotFoundException: ..../hadoop/yarn/local/......../spark-local-20150228123450-3a71/36/shuffle_0_421027_0 (No such file or directory) On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Paweł Szulc <paul.sz...@gmail.com<mailto:paul.sz...@gmail.com>> wrote: I would first check whether there is any possibility that after doing groupbykey one of the groups does not fit in one of the executors' memory. To back up my theory, instead of doing groupbykey + map try reducebykey + mapvalues. Let me know if that helped. Pawel Szulc http://rabbitonweb.com sob., 28 lut 2015, 6:22 PM Arun Luthra użytkownik <arun.lut...@gmail.com<mailto:arun.lut...@gmail.com>> napisał: So, actually I am removing the persist for now, because there is significant filtering that happens after calling textFile()... but I will keep that option in mind. I just tried a few different combinations of number of executors, executor memory, and more importantly, number of tasks... all three times it failed when approximately 75.1% of the tasks were completed (no matter how many tasks resulted from repartitioning the data in textfile(..., N)). Surely this is a strong clue to something? On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Burak Yavuz <brk...@gmail.com<mailto:brk...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, Not sure if it can help, but `StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK_SER` generates many small objects that lead to very long GC time, causing the executor losts, heartbeat not received, and GC overhead limit exceeded messages. Could you try using `StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK` instead? You can also try `OFF_HEAP` (and use Tachyon). Burak On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Arun Luthra <arun.lut...@gmail.com<mailto:arun.lut...@gmail.com>> wrote: My program in pseudocode looks like this: val conf = new SparkConf().setAppName("Test") .set("spark.storage.memoryFraction","0.2") // default 0.6 .set("spark.shuffle.memoryFraction","0.12") // default 0.2 .set("spark.shuffle.manager","SORT") // preferred setting for optimized joins .set("spark.shuffle.consolidateFiles","true") // helpful for "too many files open" .set("spark.mesos.coarse", "true") // helpful for MapOutputTracker errors? .set("spark.akka.frameSize","500") // helpful when using consildateFiles=true .set("spark.akka.askTimeout", "30") .set("spark.shuffle.compress","false") // http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/Fetch-Failure-tp20787p20811.html .set("spark.file.transferTo","false") // http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/Fetch-Failure-tp20787p20811.html .set("spark.core.connection.ack.wait.timeout","600") // http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/Fetch-Failure-tp20787p20811.html .set("spark.speculation","true") .set("spark.worker.timeout","600") // http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/Heartbeat-exceeds-td3798.html .set("spark.akka.timeout","300") // http://apache-spark-user-list.1001560.n3.nabble.com/Heartbeat-exceeds-td3798.html .set("spark.storage.blockManagerSlaveTimeoutMs","120000") .set("spark.driver.maxResultSize","2048") // in response to error: Total size of serialized results of 39901 tasks (1024.0 MB) is bigger than spark.driver.maxResultSize (1024.0 MB) .set("spark.serializer", "org.apache.spark.serializer.KryoSerializer") .set("spark.kryo.registrator","com.att.bdcoe.cip.ooh.MyRegistrator") .set("spark.kryo.registrationRequired", "true") val rdd1 = sc.textFile(file1).persist(StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK_SER).map(_.split("\\|", -1)...filter(...) val rdd2 = sc.textFile(file2).persist(StorageLevel.MEMORY_AND_DISK_SER).map(_.split("\\|", -1)...filter(...) rdd2.union(rdd1).map(...).filter(...).groupByKey().map(...).flatMap(...).saveAsTextFile() I run the code with: --num-executors 500 \ --driver-memory 20g \ --executor-memory 20g \ --executor-cores 32 \ I'm using kryo serialization on everything, including broadcast variables. Spark creates 145k tasks, and the first stage includes everything before groupByKey(). It fails before getting to groupByKey. I have tried doubling and tripling the number of partitions when calling textFile, with no success. Very similar code (trivial changes, to accomodate different input) worked on a smaller input (~8TB)... Not that it was easy to get that working. Errors vary, here is what I am getting right now: ERROR SendingConnection: Exception while reading SendingConnection ... java.nio.channels.ClosedChannelException (^ guessing that is symptom of something else) WARN BlockManagerMasterActor: Removing BlockManager BlockManagerId(...) with no recent heart beats: 120030ms exceeds 120000ms (^ guessing that is symptom of something else) ERROR ActorSystemImpl: Uncaught fatal error from thread (...) shutting down ActorSystem [sparkDriver] java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded Other times I will get messages about "executor lost..." about 1 message per second, after ~~50k tasks complete, until there are almost no executors left and progress slows to nothing. I ran with verbose GC info; I do see failing yarn containers that have multiple (like 30) "Full GC" messages but I don't know how to interpret if that is the problem. Typical Full GC time taken seems ok: [Times: user=23.30 sys=0.06, real=1.94 secs] Suggestions, please? Huge thanks for useful suggestions, Arun
