Hi Wei,
Let us know if fine tuning the number of map tasks solved your problem or
we should dig further into it.
Thanks,
Liz

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Wei Yan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks, Erzsebet and Markus. Tuning the number of map tasks can be a
> reasonal solution here, and I'll try that.
> As Sqoop 1 is a MapReduce job, I think it's hard to have both (1) many
> small queries and (2) limited concurrent executing queries.
>
> -Wei
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Erzsebet Szilagyi <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wei,
>> Markus (in CC) offered the following explanation:
>>
>> "
>> The Sqoop1 default is 4 map tasks.  When working with customers I usually
>> start with 1 and double the number of map tasks (e.g. 1, 2, 4, 8) until
>> finding a performance sweet spot while keeping in mind the potential rdbms
>> impact.
>>
>> Estimating the real rdbms impact is often challenging for some of the
>> following reasons:
>> 1. DBAs are often not present
>> 2. Jobs are often reviewed in isolation (excluding other simultaneous
>> Sqoop or non-sqoop workloads)
>> 3. Tests are often performed against smaller data volumes and/or virtual
>> resources than what will be in production (includes rdbms, network and had
>> pop cluster)
>> 4. There is not a uniform way to monitor/analyze impact across rdbms
>> vendors.
>> 4.1. I have not really tried to review Sqoop console debug from a dB
>> impact context, perhaps it could be used.
>> 5. Once deployed production job volumes often change
>>
>> Thanks, Markus
>> "
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Wei Yan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would like to check whether Sqoop supports this type of ingestion:
>>> consider we have records with range [1,12], and we have 3 mappers. So in
>>> default, the 3 mappers will be assigned [1,4], [5, 8], [9, 12].
>>>
>>> Not sure whether we can split the range to smaller one, like, [1], [2],
>>> [3], ..., [12]. But still using 3 mappers instead of 12 mappers. We want
>>> this feature because: (1) if configured smaller mapper number, each mapper
>>> will be assigned a larger range and take much longer time to finish, and
>>> the infra may kill long running query; (2) But if we configured a larger
>>> mapper number, each mapper has a smaller range, but meanwhile we generates
>>> lots of network traffic to the database, which will also be bad. One good
>>> way we want is: still 12 ranges, but 3 mappers, and at most 3 concurrent
>>> connections at most.
>>>
>>> Appreciate any help here.
>>>
>>> -Wei
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Erzsebet Szilagyi
>> Software Engineer
>> [image: www.cloudera.com] <http://www.cloudera.com>
>>
>
>


-- 
Erzsebet Szilagyi
Software Engineer
[image: www.cloudera.com] <http://www.cloudera.com>

Reply via email to