spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Grover <>
Subject YARN Shuffle service and its compatibility
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:51:01 GMT
Hi all,
If you don't use Spark on YARN, you probably don't need to read further.

Here's the *user scenario*:
There are going to be folks who may be interested in running two versions
of Spark (say Spark 1.6.x and Spark 2.x) on the same YARN cluster.

And, here's the *problem*:
That's all fine, should work well. However, there's one problem that
relates to the YARN shuffle service
This service is run by the YARN Node Managers on all nodes of the cluster
that have YARN NMs as an auxillary service

The key question here is -
Option A:  Should the user be running 2 shuffle services - one for Spark
1.6.x and one for Spark 2.x?
Option B: Should the user be running only 1 shuffle service that services
both the Spark 1.6.x and Spark 2.x installs? This will likely have to be
the Spark 1.6.x shuffle service (while ensuring it's forward compatible
with Spark 2.x).

*Discussion of above options:*
A few things to note about the shuffle service:
1. Looking at the commit history, there aren't a whole of lot of changes
that go into the shuffle service, rarely ones that are incompatible.
There's only one incompatible change
<> that's been made to the
shuffle service, as far as I can tell, and that too, seems fairly cosmetic.
2. Shuffle services for 1.6.x and 2.x serve very similar purpose (to
provide shuffle blocks) and can easily be just one service that does it,
even on a YARN cluster that runs both Spark 1.x and Spark 2.x.
3. The shuffle service is not version-spaced. This means that, the way the
code is currently, if we were to drop the jars for Spark1 and Spark2's
shuffle service in YARN NM's classpath, YARN NM won't be able to start both
services. It would arbitrarily pick one service to start (based on what
appears on the classpath first). Also, the service name is hardcoded
in Spark code and that name is also not version-spaced.

Option A is arguably cleaner but it's more operational overhead and some
code relocation/shading/version-spacing/name-spacing to make it work (due
to #3 above), potentially to not a whole lot of value (given #2 above).

Option B is simpler, lean and more operationally efficient. However, that
requires that we as a community, keep Spark 1's shuffle service forward
compatible with Spark 2 i.e. don't break compatibility between Spark1's and
Spark2's shuffle service. We could even add a test (mima?) to assert that
during the life time of Spark2. If we do go down that way, we should revert
SPARK-12130 <> - the only
backwards incompatible change made to Spark2 shuffle service so far.

My personal vote goes towards Option B and I think reverting SPARK-12130 is
ok. What do others think?


View raw message