[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-278?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Sharad Agarwal updated MAPREDUCE-278:
-------------------------------------
Attachment: Job_Tracker_FSM.pdf
Attaching the pdf having state transition diagrams. Note that for making finite
state machine, I had to introduce more states than what we explicitly have
right now. Not surprising, the state machine of Job turned out to be quite
complex due to various stages like setup, cleanup and handling of failures and
user kill actions. A lot of these currently we do it in roundabout ways and
even don't handle properly.
An interesting thing to note is that if we have the clear state model in JT,
then it becomes much much simpler to move to the model where TT is just the
task executor agnostic to task type.
> Proposal for redesign/refactoring of the JobTracker and TaskTracker
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAPREDUCE-278
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-278
> Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Arun C Murthy
> Assignee: Arun C Murthy
> Attachments: Job_Tracker_FSM.pdf, mapred_as_dfa.patch
>
>
> During discussions on HADOOP-815 wrt some hard-to-maintain code on the
> JobTracker we all agreed that the current state-of-affairs there is brittle
> and merits some rework.
> Case in point: there are back-calls from TaskInProgress to JobTracker and
> from JobInProgress to JobTracker which mean that synchronization is quite
> involved and brittle, leading to issues like HADOOP-600. Also one is forced
> to lock several data-structures individually before certain operations
> (taskTrackers, trackerExpiryQueue, jobs etc.)
> Hence I'd like to present some early thoughts (which have undergone a quick
> iteration) on how we could do slightly better by a bit of
> redesign/refactoring, also during discussions with Owen on the same we agreed
> that HADOOP-554 is an integral part along the same direction... and I also
> feel that a good candidate to be done along with this is HADOOP-398 (mapred
> package refactoring).
> Context:
> ---------
> a) The unit of communication between the JobTracker & TaskTracker is a 'task'.
> b) Due to (a) the JobTracker maintains a bunch of information related on the
> 'taskid' i.e. taskidToTipMap, taskidToTrackerMap etc. and hence we need to
> update the JobTracker's data-structures via back-calls from TaskInProgress &
> JobInProgress where the context is available (complete/failed task,
> already-completed task etc.)
> c) This implies that we have a fairly elaborate and hard to maintain locking
> structures and also some redundant information in the JobTracker; making it
> harder to maintain.
> Overall at both the JobTracker & TaskTracker the concept of a 'job' is
> overshadowed by the 'task'; which I propose we fix.
> Proposal:
> ----------
> Here is the main flow of control:
> JobTracker -> JobInProgress -> TaskInProgress -> task_attempt
> The main idea is to break the existing nexus between the JobTracker &
> TaskInProgress/taskid by (I've put code for illustrative purposes only, and
> ignored pieces irrelevant to this discussion):
> a) Making the 'job' the primary unit of communication between JobTracker &
> TaskTracker.
> b) TaskTrackerStatus now looks like this:
> class TaskTrackerStatus {
> List<JobStatus> jobStatuses; // the status of the 'jobs' running on a
> TaskTracker
> String getTrackerName();
> }
> class JobStatus {
> List<TaskStatus> taskStatuses; // the status of the 'tasks' belonging to
> a job
> JobId getJobId();
> }
> c) The JobTracker maintains only a single map of jobid -> JobInProgress, and
> mapping from taskTracker -> List<JobInProgress>
> Map<JobId, JobInProgress> allJobs;
> Map<String, List<JobInProgress>> trackerToJobsMap;
> d) The JobTracker delegates a bunch of responsibilities to the JobInProgress
> to reflect the fact the primary 'concept' in map/reduce is the 'job', thus
> empowering the JobInProgress class:
> class JobInProgress {
> TaskInProgress[] mapTasks;
> TaskInProgress[] reduceTasks;
>
> Map<String, List<TaskInProgress>> trackerToTasksMap; // tracker -> tasks
> running
> Map<String, List<TaskAttempt>> trackerToMarkedTasksMap; // tracker ->
> completed (success/failed/killed) task-attempt,
>
> // but the tracker doesn't know it yet
> void updateStatus(JobStatus jobStatus);
> MapOutputLocation[] getMapOutputLocations(int[] mapTasksNeeded, int
> reduce);
> TaskAttempt getTaskToRun(String taskTracker);
> List<TaskTrackerAction> getTaskToKill(String taskTracker);
> }
>
> d) On receipt of TaskTrackerStatus from a tracker, the processeing of
> heartbeat looks like this:
> for (JobStatus jobStatus : taskTrackerStatus.getJobStatuses()) {
> JobInProgress job = allJobs.get(jobId);
> synchronized (job) {
> job.updateStatus(jobStatus);
> return (HeartbeatResponse(repsonseId,
> job.getTaskAttemptToRun(trackerName),
> job.getTaskToKill(trackerName)
> ));
> }
> }
>
> The big change is that the JobTracker delegates a lot of responsibility to
> the JobInProgress, we get away from all the complicated synchronization
> constructs: simply lock the JobInProgress object at all places via
> allJobs/trackerToJobsMap and we are done. This also enhances throughput since
> mostly we will not need to lock up the JobTracker (even in the heartbeat
> loop); locking the JobInProgress or the 2 maps is sufficient in most cases...
> thus enhance the inherent parallelism of the JobTracker's inner loop
> (processing heartbeat) and provide better response when multiple jobs are
> running on the cluster.
> Hence the JobInProgress is responsible for maintaining it's TaskInProgress'es
> which in turn are completely responsible for the TaskAttempt`s, the
> JobInProgress also provides sufficient information as and when needed to the
> JobTracker to schedule jobs/tasks and the JobTracker is blissfully unaware of
> the innards of jobs/tasks.
> -*-*-
> I hope to articulate more a general direction towards an improved and
> maintainable 'mapred' and would love to hear out how we can improve and
> pitfalls to avoid... lets discuss. We could take this piecemeal an implement
> or at one go...
> Last, not least; I propose that while we are at this we redo the nomenclature
> a bit:
> JobInProgress -> Job
> TaskInProgress -> Task
> taskid -> replace with a new TaskAttempt
> this should help clarify each class and it's roles.
> Of course we will probably need a separate org.apache.hadoop.mapred.job.Task
> v/s org.apache.hadoop.mapred.task.Task which is why I feel HADOOP-554
> (refactoring of mapred packages) would be very important to get a complete,
> coherent solution.
> Thoughts?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
