Looks like my phrasing was off :) When I said it is never able to hit max capacity I meant max capacity for the pool (e.g. we never saw it take up the full 200 maps AND even if every jobs uses 1 mapper could never get to 200 concurrent jobs for that pool).
-- Matt On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Nan Zhu <[email protected]> wrote: > You set maxMaps to 200, > > so the maximum running mappers should be no more than 200 > > Best, > > -- > Nan Zhu > School of Computer Science, > McGill University > > > On Thursday, 8 November, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Matt Goeke wrote: > > Pretty straight forward question but can the fair share factor actually > impact the total number of jobs / slots a pool can take up even if it is > the only pool with active jobs submitted? > > We currently have a pool that has this configuration: > "minMaps": 2, > > "minReduces": 1, > "maxMaps": 200, > "maxReduces": 66, > "maxRunningJobs": 200, > "minSharePreemptionTimeout": 300, > "weight": "4.0" > > The total cluster capacity is over above 250 mappers but we are finding that > this pool is never able to hit that max capacity for maps OR jobs even during > load tests. I was about to bump the minMaps property but I wanted to confirm > that this could potentially help alleviate our issue. > > -- > Matt > > >
