The fair scheduler would solve this issue, but we need the capacity scheduler for other reason. Would it be possible to run multiple schedulers in parallel?
/Pelle On Thursday, May 26, 2016, David Morel <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 26 mai 2016 9:04 AM, "Per Ullberg" <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> a écrit : > > > > The split is skewed. Just running one sqoop action will cause some > > containers to finish early and others to finish late. If we run the > actions > > concurrently, the early finishers will be idle until all containers for > > that action is done and the next action can commence. By running the > > actions in parallel, we will finish earlier in total and also utilize our > > cluster resources better. > > I used the FairScheduler for exactly this scenario at my previous job. > > David > > > regards > > /Pelle > > > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Robert Kanter <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > If you want to only run one of the Sqoop Actions at a time, why not > simply > > > remove the fork and run the Sqoop Actions sequentially? > > > > > > - Robert > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Per Ullberg <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > We have an oozie workflow that imports data table by table from a > RDBMS > > > > using sqoop. One action per table. The sqoop commands use "split by > > > column" > > > > and spread out on a number of mappers. > > > > > > > > We fork all the actions so basically all sqoop jobs are launched at > once. > > > > > > > > The RDBMS can only accept a fixed number of connections and if this > is > > > > exceeded, the sqoop action will fail and eventually the whole oozie > > > > workflow will fail. > > > > > > > > We use the yarn capacity scheduler (2.6.0) and have set up a specific > > > queue > > > > for this job to throttle the maximum number of concurrent containers. > > > > However, this setup is hard to manage because all configurations in > the > > > > capacity scheduler are relative to the max amount of vcores of the > > > cluster > > > > and as we add machines or otherwise tune the cluster, the actual > number > > > of > > > > containers granted to the oozie job changes and at times we hit the > > > > connection roof. > > > > > > > > So, is there another way to throttle the number of concurrent > containers > > > > for an oozie job? I guess you would have to be able to throttle both > > > > launchers and map-reduce containers? > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > /Pelle > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > *Per Ullberg* > > > > Tech Lead > > > > Odin - Uppsala > > > > > > > > Klarna AB > > > > Sveavägen 46, 111 34 Stockholm > > > > Tel: +46 8 120 120 00 > > > > Reg no: 556737-0431 > > > > klarna.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Per Ullberg* > > Tech Lead > > Odin - Uppsala > > > > Klarna AB > > Sveavägen 46, 111 34 Stockholm > > Tel: +46 8 120 120 00 > > Reg no: 556737-0431 > > klarna.com > -- *Per Ullberg* Tech Lead Odin - Uppsala Klarna AB Sveavägen 46, 111 34 Stockholm Tel: +46 8 120 120 00 Reg no: 556737-0431 klarna.com
