[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15729?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16609308#comment-16609308 ]
Sean Mackrory commented on HADOOP-15729: ---------------------------------------- Assuming you allow the pool to kill core threads and don't pre-start all your threads (and I'm not opposed to adding configs to control these behaviors if anyone thinks it'd get used, but I think you'd have to be spending a *lot* of time on thread creation for that to be worth it), the only change in behavior when you specify a number of core threads is that the executor will always prefer to spawn a new thread rather than use an existing idle thread, and unless you're gradually ramping up a long-term workload I don't think that makes sense. This is inherently bursty, so I think the sensible approach is to just 0 as the number of core threads, allow it to expand as needed, and completely clean up when idle (and that period of time is already configurable). I'll test a patch for this, but input welcome. > [s3a] stop treat fs.s3a.max.threads as the long-term minimum > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: HADOOP-15729 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15729 > Project: Hadoop Common > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: fs/s3 > Reporter: Sean Mackrory > Assignee: Sean Mackrory > Priority: Major > > A while ago the s3a connector started experiencing deadlocks because the AWS > SDK requires an unbounded threadpool. It places monitoring tasks on the work > queue before the tasks they wait on, so it's possible (has even happened with > larger-than-default threadpools) for the executor to become permanently > saturated and deadlock. > So we started giving an unbounded threadpool executor to the SDK, and using a > bounded, blocking threadpool service for everything else S3A needs (although > currently that's only in the S3ABlockOutputStream). fs.s3a.max.threads then > only limits this threadpool, however we also specified fs.s3a.max.threads as > the number of core threads in the unbounded threadpool, which in hindsight is > pretty terrible. > Currently those core threads do not timeout, so this is actually setting a > sort of minimum. Once that many tasks have been submitted, the threadpool > will be locked at that number until it bursts beyond that, but it will only > spin down that far. If fs.s3a.max.threads is set reasonably high and someone > uses a bunch of S3 buckets, they could easily have thousands of idle threads > constantly. > We should either not use fs.s3a.max.threads for the corepool size and > introduce a new configuration, or we should simply allow core threads to > timeout. I'm reading the OpenJDK source now to see what subtle differences > there are between core threads and other threads if core threads can timeout. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: common-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org