hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alejandro Abdelnur (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Created] (YARN-789) Add flag to scheduler to allow zero capabilities in resources
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2013 19:46:21 GMT
Alejandro Abdelnur created YARN-789:

             Summary: Add flag to scheduler to allow zero capabilities in resources
                 Key: YARN-789
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-789
             Project: Hadoop YARN
          Issue Type: Improvement
          Components: scheduler
    Affects Versions: 2.0.4-alpha
            Reporter: Alejandro Abdelnur
            Assignee: Alejandro Abdelnur

Per discussion in YARN-689, reposting updated use case:

1. I have a set of services co-existing with a Yarn cluster.

2. These services run out of band from Yarn. They are not started as yarn containers and they
don't use Yarn containers for processing.

3. These services use, dynamically, different amounts of CPU and memory based on their load.
They manage their CPU and memory requirements independently. In other words, depending on
their load, they may require more CPU but not memory or vice-versa.
By using YARN as RM for these services I'm able share and utilize the resources of the cluster
appropriately and in a dynamic way. Yarn keeps tab of all the resources.

These services run an AM that reserves resources on their behalf. When this AM gets the requested
resources, the services bump up their CPU/memory utilization out of band from Yarn. If the
Yarn allocations are released/preempted, the services back off on their resources utilization.
By doing this, Yarn and these service correctly share the cluster resources, being Yarn RM
the only one that does the overall resource bookkeeping.

The services AM, not to break the lifecycle of containers, start containers in the corresponding
NMs. These container processes do basically a sleep forever (i.e. sleep 10000d). They are
almost not using any CPU nor memory (less than 1MB). Thus it is reasonable to assume their
required CPU and memory utilization is NIL (more on hard enforcement later). Because of this
almost NIL utilization of CPU and memory, it is possible to specify, when doing a request,
zero as one of the dimensions (CPU or memory).

The current limitation is that the increment is also the minimum. 

If we set the memory increment to 1MB. When doing a pure CPU request, we would have to specify
1MB of memory. That would work. However it would allow discretionary memory requests without
a desired normalization (increments of 256, 512, etc).

If we set the CPU increment to 1CPU. When doing a pure memory request, we would have to specify
1CPU. CPU amounts a much smaller than memory amounts, and because we don't have fractional
CPUs, it would mean that all my pure memory requests will be wasting 1 CPU thus reducing the
overall utilization of the cluster.

Finally, on hard enforcement. 

* For CPU. Hard enforcement can be done via a cgroup cpu controller. Using an absolute minimum
of a few CPU shares (ie 10) in the LinuxContainerExecutor we ensure there is enough CPU cycles
to run the sleep process. This absolute minimum would only kick-in if zero is allowed, otherwise
will never kick in as the shares for 1 CPU are 1024.

* For Memory. Hard enforcement is currently done by the ProcfsBasedProcessTree.java, using
a minimum absolute of 1 or 2 MBs would take care of zero memory resources. And again,  this
absolute minimum would only kick-in if zero is allowed, otherwise will never kick in as the
increment memory is in several MBs if not 1GB.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

View raw message