P.S., Since memory issue of graph job will be fixed by Thomas's HAMA-642, I'll remove my dirty multi-step partitioning code in graph module if there's no problem w/ Hadoop RPC tomorrow.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Thomas Jungblut <[email protected]> wrote: > I will give you more details what I planned on the interface changes once > I'm back from my lecture. > > 2012/9/19 Suraj Menon <[email protected]> > >> As a beginning we should have a spilling queue and the same with combiner >> running in batch if possible. >> I have been looking into implementing the spilling queue. Chalking out the >> requirements, we should look into the following: >> >> A queue should persist all the data if required by the framework for fault >> tolerance. ( I feel it would be a bad idea for framework to spend resource >> on making a separate copy of the file ) >> Asynchronous communication is our next important feature required for >> performance.Hence we would need this queue with combiner on sender side to >> batch the messages before sending. This implies we need to support both >> concurrent reads and writes. >> >> -Suraj >> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Thomas Jungblut >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> > Oh okay, very interesting. Just another argument for making the messaging >> > more scalable ;) >> > >> > 2012/9/19 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> >> > >> > > Didn't check memory usage because each machine's memory is 48 GB, but I >> > > guess there's no big difference. >> > > >> > > In short, "bin/hama bench 16 10000 32" was maximum capacity (See [1]). >> If >> > > message numbers or nodes are increased, job is always fails. Hadoop RPC >> > is >> > > OK. >> > > >> > > Will need time to debug this. >> > > >> > > 1. http://wiki.apache.org/hama/**Benchmarks#Random_** >> > > Communication_Benchmark< >> > http://wiki.apache.org/hama/Benchmarks#Random_Communication_Benchmark> >> > > >> > > On 9/19/2012 4:34 PM, Thomas Jungblut wrote: >> > > >> > >> BTW after HAMA-642<https://issues.**apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-**642 >> < >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-642>> >> > >> I will >> > >> >> > >> redesign our messaging system to being completely disk based with >> > caching. >> > >> I will formulate a followup issue for this. However I plan to get rid >> of >> > >> the RPC anyway, I think it is more efficient to stream the messages >> from >> > >> disk over network to the other host via NIO (we can later replace it >> > with >> > >> netty). Also this saves us the time to do the checkpointing, because >> > this >> > >> can be combined with it pretty well. RPC requires the whole bundle to >> be >> > >> in >> > >> RAM, which is totally bad. >> > >> Will follow with more details later. >> > >> >> > >> 2012/9/19 Thomas Jungblut<thomas.jungblut@**gmail.com< >> > [email protected]> >> > >> >: >> > >> >> > >>> What is more memory efficient? >> > >>> >> > >>> Am 19.09.2012 08:23 schrieb "Edward J. Yoon"<[email protected] >> >: >> > >>> >> > >>> Let's change the default value of RPC in hama-default.xml to Hadoop >> > RPC. >> > >>>> >> > >>> I >> > >> >> > >>> am testing Hadoop RPC and Avro RPC on 4 racks cluster. Avro RPC is >> > >>>> >> > >>> criminal. >> > >> >> > >>> There's no significant performance difference. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> -- >> > >>>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon >> > >>>> @eddieyoon >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > > -- >> > > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon >> > > @eddieyoon >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon
