Many thanks Harsh, I will try it.  :D

Best regards,
        Andrés Durán


El 22/05/2012, a las 14:25, Harsh J escribió:

> A minor correction: CapacityScheduler doesn't seem to do multi-reducer
> assignments (or at least not in 1.x), but does do multi-map
> assignments. This is for the same reason as
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/KYv8JhkOHc1. FairScheduler in 1.x supports
> multi-map and multi-reducer assignments over single heartbeats, which
> should do good on your single 32-task machine.
> 
> Do give it a try and let us know!
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This may be cause, depending on your scheduler, only one Reducer may
>> be allocated per TT heartbeat. A reasoning of why this is the case is
>> explained here: http://search-hadoop.com/m/KYv8JhkOHc1
>> 
>> You may have better results in 1.0.3 using an alternative scheduler
>> such as FairScheduler with multiple-assignments-per-heartbeat turned
>> on (See http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/current/fair_scheduler.html
>> and boolean property "mapred.fairscheduler.assignmultiple" to enable)
>> or via CapacityScheduler (See
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/current/capacity_scheduler.html)
>> which does it as well (OOB).
>> 
>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Andrés Durán <du...@tadium.es> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>>        I'm working with a Hadoop, version is 1.0.3 and configured in 
>>> pseudo-distributed mode.
>>> 
>>>        I have 128 reducers tasks and it's running in a local machine with 
>>> 32 cores. The job is working fine and fast it  takes 1 hour and 30 minutes 
>>> to fininsh. But when the Job starts, the reducers are comming to the 
>>> running phase from the tasks queue very slow, it takes 7 minutes to 
>>> allocate 32 tasks in the running phase. Why is too slow to allocate task in 
>>> running mode? It's possible to adjust any variable in the jobs tracker 
>>> setup to reduce this allocation time?
>>> 
>>>  Thanks to all!
>>> 
>>>  Best regards,
>>>        Andrés Durán
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Harsh J
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Harsh J

Reply via email to