[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4783?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Ahmet Altay reopened BEAM-4783:
-------------------------------

Re-opening this issue to track performance degradation mention on the dev@ list 
(https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/29a7ae00ca0d95ebc2c24b3340ac64c6875b0cc0b46f56f9f9ed38c7@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E)
 and the PR (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6181)

> Add bundleSize parameter to control splitting of Spark sources (useful for 
> Dynamic Allocation)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: BEAM-4783
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4783
>             Project: Beam
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: runner-spark
>    Affects Versions: 2.8.0
>            Reporter: Kyle Winkelman
>            Assignee: Kyle Winkelman
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 2.8.0, 2.9.0
>
>          Time Spent: 5h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> When the spark-runner is used along with the configuration 
> spark.dynamicAllocation.enabled=true the SourceRDD does not detect this. It 
> then falls back to the value calculated in this description:
>       // when running on YARN/SparkDeploy it's the result of max(totalCores, 
> 2).
>       // when running on Mesos it's 8.
>       // when running local it's the total number of cores (local = 1, 
> local[N] = N,
>       // local[*] = estimation of the machine's cores).
>       // ** the configuration "spark.default.parallelism" takes precedence 
> over all of the above **
> So in most cases this default is quite small. This is an issue when using a 
> very large input file as it will only get split in half.
> I believe that when Dynamic Allocation is enable the SourceRDD should use the 
> DEFAULT_BUNDLE_SIZE and possibly expose a SparkPipelineOptions that allows 
> you to change this DEFAULT_BUNDLE_SIZE.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to