[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10884?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16706723#comment-16706723
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-10884:
----------------------------------------
zhijiangW commented on a change in pull request #7185: [FLINK-10884]
[yarn/mesos] adjust container memory param to set a safe margin from offheap
memory
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/7185#discussion_r238154920
##########
File path:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/clusterframework/ContaineredTaskManagerParameters.java
##########
@@ -158,8 +158,10 @@ public static ContaineredTaskManagerParameters create(
// (2) split the remaining Java memory between heap and off-heap
final long heapSizeMB =
TaskManagerServices.calculateHeapSizeMB(containerMemoryMB - cutoffMB, config);
- // use the cut-off memory for off-heap (that was its intention)
- final long offHeapSizeMB = containerMemoryMB - heapSizeMB;
+ // (3) try to compute the offHeapMemory from a safe margin
+ final long restMemoryMB = containerMemoryMB - heapSizeMB;
+ final long offHeapCutoffMemory =
calculateOffHeapCutoffMB(config, restMemoryMB);
Review comment:
I agree that both ways can work well. If we introduce the parameter
`containerized.offheap-cutoff-ratio`, do you think we should also introduce
`containerized.offheap-cutoff-min` to keep the same behavior with previous
parameters?
I suggest naming the current `containerized.heap-cutoff-ratio` to
`containerized.memory-cutoff-ratio` to integrate all the memory overhead issues
for below reasons:
1. Less parameters seem better sometimes, but not always. If you want to cut
off 100 heap memory, and 200 off-heap memory, then you can cut off 300 memory
directly. It does not matter and no control how the 300 memory are used by heap
or off-heap. And it is actually stolen by any memory usages as long as no
exceeding the container physical memory.
2. Minimum change for only refactor the existing parameter name.
Of course I can also accept the separate parameters if you insist on it. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
> Flink on yarn TM container will be killed by nodemanager because of the
> exceeded physical memory.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-10884
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10884
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Cluster Management, Core
> Affects Versions: 1.5.5, 1.6.2, 1.7.0
> Environment: version : 1.6.2
> module : flink on yarn
> centos jdk1.8
> hadoop 2.7
> Reporter: wgcn
> Assignee: wgcn
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available, yarn
>
> TM container will be killed by nodemanager because of the exceeded
> [physical|http://www.baidu.com/link?url=Y4LyfMDH59n9-Ey16Fo6EFAYltN1e9anB3y2ynhVmdvuIBCkJGdH0hTExKDZRvXNr6hqhwIXs8JjYqesYbx0BOpQDD0o1VjbVQlOC-9MgXi]
> memory. I found the lanuch context lanuching TM container that
> "container memory = heap memory+ offHeapSizeMB" at the class
> org.apache.flink.runtime.clusterframework.ContaineredTaskManagerParameters
> from line 160 to 166 I set a safety margin for the whole memory container
> using. For example if the container limit 3g memory, the sum memory that
> "heap memory+ offHeapSizeMB" is equal to 2.4g to prevent the container
> being killed.Do we have the
> [ready-made|http://www.baidu.com/link?url=ylC8cEafGU6DWAdU9ADcJPNugkjbx6IjtqIIxJ9foX4_Yfgc7ctWmpEpQRettVmBiOy7Wfph7S1UvN5LiJj-G1Rsb--oDw4Z2OEbA5Fj0bC]
> solution or I can commit my solution
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
