[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-4665?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12718099#action_12718099
]
Vinod K V commented on HADOOP-4665:
-----------------------------------
Matei, I have (re)started looking at the patch. The changes look good overall,
except the following points:
- preemptionInterval variable is initialized to 30000 whereas the default
value is 15000. Shouldn't they be consistent?
- EagerTaskInitializationListener is not removed from the list of listeners in
the terminate method
- You seem to have missed one of my earlier points:
bq. The count tasksDueToFairShare seems to be calculated to see if full
fair-share of slots are allotted or not instead of the advertised half of
fairshare. I think this is a mistake as isStarvedForFairShare() is checking for
half of fair-share. Or am I missing something?
The changes in test-cases and documentation seem to be huge. It'll take till
tomorrow for me to complete the review of test-cases and documentation. Thanks
for the patience.
> Add preemption to the fair scheduler
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-4665
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-4665
> Project: Hadoop Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: contrib/fair-share
> Reporter: Matei Zaharia
> Assignee: Matei Zaharia
> Fix For: 0.21.0
>
> Attachments: fs-preemption-v0.patch, hadoop-4665-v1.patch,
> hadoop-4665-v1b.patch, hadoop-4665-v2.patch, hadoop-4665-v3.patch,
> hadoop-4665-v4.patch, hadoop-4665-v5.patch, hadoop-4665-v6.patch,
> hadoop-4665-v7.patch, hadoop-4665-v7b.patch
>
>
> Task preemption is necessary in a multi-user Hadoop cluster for two reasons:
> users might submit long-running tasks by mistake (e.g. an infinite loop in a
> map program), or tasks may be long due to having to process large amounts of
> data. The Fair Scheduler (HADOOP-3746) has a concept of guaranteed capacity
> for certain queues, as well as a goal of providing good performance for
> interactive jobs on average through fair sharing. Therefore, it will support
> preempting under two conditions:
> 1) A job isn't getting its _guaranteed_ share of the cluster for at least T1
> seconds.
> 2) A job is getting significantly less than its _fair_ share for T2 seconds
> (e.g. less than half its share).
> T1 will be chosen smaller than T2 (and will be configurable per queue) to
> meet guarantees quickly. T2 is meant as a last resort in case non-critical
> jobs in queues with no guaranteed capacity are being starved.
> When deciding which tasks to kill to make room for the job, we will use the
> following heuristics:
> - Look for tasks to kill only in jobs that have more than their fair share,
> ordering these by deficit (most overscheduled jobs first).
> - For maps: kill tasks that have run for the least amount of time (limiting
> wasted time).
> - For reduces: similar to maps, but give extra preference for reduces in the
> copy phase where there is not much map output per task (at Facebook, we have
> observed this to be the main time we need preemption - when a job has a long
> map phase and its reducers are mostly sitting idle and filling up slots).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
