spark-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Karlupia <roh...@qubole.com>
Subject Re: Open sourcing Sparklens: Qubole's Spark Tuning Tool
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:45:50 GMT
Thanks Fawze!

On the memory front, I am currently working on GC and CPU aware task
scheduling. I see wonderful results based on my tests so far.  Once the
feature is complete and available, spark will work with whatever memory is
provided (at least enough for the largest possible task). It will also
allow you to run say 64 concurrent tasks on 8 core machine, if the nature
of tasks doesn't leads to memory or CPU contention. Essentially why worry
about tuning memory when you can let spark take care of it automatically
based on memory pressure. Will post details when we are ready.  So yes we
are working on memory, but it will not be a tool but a transparent feature.

thanks,
rohitk




On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Fawze Abujaber <fawzeaj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rohit,
>
> I would like to thank you for the unlimited patience and support that you
> are providing here and behind the scene for all of us.
>
> The tool is amazing and easy to use and understand most of the metrics ...
>
> Thinking if we need to run it in cluster mode and all the time, i think we
> can skip it as one or few runs can give you the large picture of how the
> job is running with different configuration and it's not too much
> complicated to run it using spark-submit.
>
> I think it will be so helpful if the sparklens can also include how the
> job is running with different configuration of cores and memory, Spark job
> with 1 exec and 1 core will run different from spark job with 1  exec and 3
> cores and for sure the same compare with different exec memory.
>
> Overall, it is so good starting point, but it will be a GAME CHANGER
> getting these metrics on the tool.
>
> @Rohit , Huge THANY YOU
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rohit Karlupia <rohitk@qubole.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Shmuel,
>>
>> In general it is hard to pin point to exact code which is responsible for
>> a specific stage. For example when using spark sql, depending upon the kind
>> of joins, aggregations used in the the single line of query, we will have
>> multiple stages in the spark application. I usually try to split the code
>> into smaller chunks and also use the spark UI which has special section for
>> SQL. It can also show specific backtraces, but as I explained earlier they
>> might not be very helpful. Sparklens does help you ask the right questions,
>> but is not mature enough to answer all of them.
>>
>> Understanding the report:
>>
>> *1) The first part of total aggregate metrics for the application.*
>>
>> Printing application meterics.....
>>
>>  AggregateMetrics (Application Metrics) total measurements 1869
>>                 NAME                        SUM                MIN           MAX
               MEAN
>>  diskBytesSpilled                            0.0 KB         0.0 KB         0.0 KB
             0.0 KB
>>  executorRuntime                            15.1 hh         3.0 ms         4.0 mm
            29.1 ss
>>  inputBytesRead                             26.1 GB         0.0 KB        43.8 MB
            14.3 MB
>>  jvmGCTime                                  11.0 mm         0.0 ms         2.1 ss
           354.0 ms
>>  memoryBytesSpilled                        314.2 GB         0.0 KB         1.1 GB
           172.1 MB
>>  outputBytesWritten                          0.0 KB         0.0 KB         0.0 KB
             0.0 KB
>>  peakExecutionMemory                         0.0 KB         0.0 KB         0.0 KB
             0.0 KB
>>  resultSize                                 12.9 MB         2.0 KB        40.9 KB
             7.1 KB
>>  shuffleReadBytesRead                      107.7 GB         0.0 KB       276.0 MB
            59.0 MB
>>  shuffleReadFetchWaitTime                    2.0 ms         0.0 ms         0.0 ms
             0.0 ms
>>  shuffleReadLocalBlocks                       2,318              0             68
                  1
>>  shuffleReadRecordsRead               3,413,511,099              0      8,251,926
          1,826,383
>>  shuffleReadRemoteBlocks                    291,126              0            824
                155
>>  shuffleWriteBytesWritten                  107.6 GB         0.0 KB       257.6 MB
            58.9 MB
>>  shuffleWriteRecordsWritten           3,408,133,175              0      7,959,055
          1,823,506
>>  shuffleWriteTime                            8.7 mm         0.0 ms         1.8 ss
           278.2 ms
>>  taskDuration                               15.4 hh        12.0 ms         4.1 mm
            29.7 ss
>>
>>
>> *2) Here we show number of hosts used and executors per host. I have seen users set
executor memory to 33GB on a 64GB executor. Direct waste of 31GB of memory.*
>>
>> Total Hosts 135
>>
>>
>> Host server86.cluster.com startTime 02:26:21:081 executors count 3
>> Host server164.cluster.com startTime 02:30:12:204 executors count 1
>> Host server28.cluster.com startTime 02:31:09:023 executors count 1
>> Host server78.cluster.com startTime 02:26:08:844 executors count 5
>> Host server124.cluster.com startTime 02:26:10:523 executors count 3
>> Host server100.cluster.com startTime 02:30:24:073 executors count 1
>> Done printing host timeline
>> *3) Time at which executers were added. Not all executors are available at the start
of the application. *
>>
>> Printing executors timeline....
>> Total Hosts 135
>> Total Executors 250
>> At 02:26 executors added 52 & removed  0 currently available 52
>> At 02:27 executors added 10 & removed  0 currently available 62
>> At 02:28 executors added 13 & removed  0 currently available 75
>> At 02:29 executors added 81 & removed  0 currently available 156
>> At 02:30 executors added 48 & removed  0 currently available 204
>> At 02:31 executors added 45 & removed  0 currently available 249
>> At 02:32 executors added 1 & removed  0 currently available 250
>>
>>
>> *4) How the stages within the jobs were scheduled. Helps you understand which stages
ran in parallel and which are dependent on others.
>> *
>>
>> Printing Application timeline
>> 02:26:47:654      Stage 3 ended : maxTaskTime 3117 taskCount 1
>> 02:26:47:708      Stage 4 started : duration 00m 02s
>> 02:26:49:898      Stage 4 ended : maxTaskTime 226 taskCount 200
>> 02:26:49:901 JOB 3 ended
>> 02:26:56:234 JOB 4 started : duration 08m 28s
>> [      5 |||||||                                                                
        ]
>> [      6  |||||||||||||||||||                                                   
        ]
>> [      9                   ||||||||                                             
        ]
>> [     10     ||||||||||||||                                                     
        ]
>> [     11                                                                        
        ]
>> [     12                     ||                                                 
        ]
>> [     13                       ||||                                             
        ]
>> [     14                           |||||||||||||||                              
        ]
>> [     15                                          ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
]
>> 02:26:58:095      Stage 5 started : duration 00m 44s
>> 02:27:42:816      Stage 5 ended : maxTaskTime 37214 taskCount 23
>> 02:27:03:478      Stage 6 started : duration 02m 04s
>> 02:29:07:517      Stage 6 ended : maxTaskTime 35578 taskCount 601
>> 02:28:56:449      Stage 9 started : duration 00m 46s
>> 02:29:42:625      Stage 9 ended : maxTaskTime 7196 taskCount 200
>> 02:27:22:343      Stage 10 started : duration 01m 33s
>> 02:28:56:333      Stage 10 ended : maxTaskTime 49203 taskCount 39
>> 02:27:23:910      Stage 11 started : duration 00m 00s
>> 02:27:24:422      Stage 11 ended : maxTaskTime 298 taskCount 2
>> 02:29:06:902      Stage 12 started : duration 00m 12s
>> 02:29:19:350      Stage 12 ended : maxTaskTime 11511 taskCount 200
>> 02:29:19:413      Stage 13 started : duration 00m 25s
>> 02:29:44:444      Stage 13 ended : maxTaskTime 24924 taskCount 200
>> 02:29:44:491      Stage 14 started : duration 01m 36s
>> 02:31:20:873      Stage 14 ended : maxTaskTime 86194 taskCount 200
>> 02:31:20:973      Stage 15 started : duration 04m 03s
>> 02:35:24:346      Stage 15 ended : maxTaskTime 238747 taskCount 200
>> 02:35:24:347 JOB 4 ended
>> 02:35:28:841 app ended
>> *5) I guess these metrics are well explained *
>>
>>
>>  Time spent in Driver vs Executors
>>  Driver WallClock Time    01m 02s   10.66%
>>  Executor WallClock Time  08m 43s   89.34%
>>  Total WallClock Time     09m 46s
>>
>>
>>
>> Minimum possible time for the app based on the critical path (with infinite resources)
  07m 59s
>> Minimum possible time for the app with same executors, perfect parallelism and zero
skew 02m 15s
>> If we were to run this app with single executor and single core                 
        15h 08m
>>
>>
>>  Total cores available to the app 750
>>
>>  OneCoreComputeHours: Measure of total compute power available from cluster. One
core in the executor, running
>>                       for one hour, counts as one OneCoreComputeHour. Executors with
4 cores, will have 4 times
>>                       the OneCoreComputeHours compared to one with just one core.
Similarly, one core executor
>>                       running for 4 hours will OnCoreComputeHours equal to 4 core
executor running for 1 hour.
>>
>>  Driver Utilization (Cluster idle because of driver)
>>
>>  Total OneCoreComputeHours available                            122h 07m
>>  Total OneCoreComputeHours available (AutoScale Aware)           77h 25m
>>  OneCoreComputeHours wasted by driver                            13h 01m
>>
>>  AutoScale Aware: Most of the calculations by this tool will assume that all executors
are available throughout
>>                   the runtime of the application. The number above is printed to
show possible caution to be
>>                   taken in interpreting the efficiency metrics.
>>
>>  Cluster Utilization (Executors idle because of lack of tasks or skew)
>>
>>  Executor OneCoreComputeHours available                 109h 06m
>>  Executor OneCoreComputeHours used                       15h 07m        13.86%
>>  OneCoreComputeHours wasted                              93h 59m        86.14%
>>
>>  App Level Wastage Metrics (Driver + Executor)
>>
>>  OneCoreComputeHours wasted Driver               10.66%
>>  OneCoreComputeHours wasted Executor             76.96%
>>  OneCoreComputeHours wasted Total                87.62%
>>
>>
>>
>> 6) *Here we use the simulation to provide answers to how the application wall clock
time will vary as we change the number of executors. Goal is to run the application at 100%
cluster utilization and minimum time. Look for ROI in terms of wall clock time due to additional
executors. Also if the application is not scaling, this is good time to revisit application
and look for why it is not scaling.*
>>
>>  App completion time and cluster utilization estimates with different executor counts
>>
>>  Real App Duration 09m 46s
>>  Model Estimation  08m 01s
>>  Model Error       17%
>>
>>  NOTE: 1) Model error could be large when auto-scaling is enabled.
>>        2) Model doesn't handles multiple jobs run via thread-pool. For better insights
into
>>           application scalability, please try such jobs one by one without thread-pool.
>>
>>
>>  Executor count    25  ( 10%) estimated time 17m 07s and estimated cluster utilization
70.61%
>>  Executor count    50  ( 20%) estimated time 12m 15s and estimated cluster utilization
49.34%
>>  Executor count   125  ( 50%) estimated time 08m 25s and estimated cluster utilization
28.72%
>>  Executor count   200  ( 80%) estimated time 08m 15s and estimated cluster utilization
18.29%
>>  Executor count   250  (100%) estimated time 08m 01s and estimated cluster utilization
15.06%
>>  Executor count   275  (110%) estimated time 08m 00s and estimated cluster utilization
13.72%
>>  Executor count   300  (120%) estimated time 07m 59s and estimated cluster utilization
12.61%
>>  Executor count   375  (150%) estimated time 07m 59s and estimated cluster utilization
10.09%
>>  Executor count   500  (200%) estimated time 07m 59s and estimated cluster utilization
7.57%
>>  Executor count   750  (300%) estimated time 07m 59s and estimated cluster utilization
5.04%
>>  Executor count  1000  (400%) estimated time 07m 59s and estimated cluster utilization
3.78%
>>  Executor count  1250  (500%) estimated time 07m 59s and estimated cluster utilization
3.03%
>>
>> *7) These two sections are for finding out which stage are taking most of the wall-clock
time and why. It is either not enough parallelism or skew. Parallelism is easier to fix. Fixing
skew will require changing the application in way that creates more uniform tasks.
>> *
>> Total tasks in all stages 1869
>> Per Stage  Utilization
>> Stage-ID   Wall    Task      Task     IO%    Input     Output    ----Shuffle-----
   -WallClockTime-    --OneCoreComputeHours---   MaxTaskMem
>>           Clock%  Runtime%   Count                               Input  |  Output
   Measured | Ideal   Available| Used%|Wasted%
>>        0    0.00    0.00         1    0.0   64.0 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB
   00m 02s   00m 00s    00h 27m    0.0  100.0    0.0 KB
>>        1    0.00    0.00         1    0.0   64.0 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB
   00m 02s   00m 00s    00h 30m    0.1   99.9    0.0 KB
>>        2    0.00    0.00         1    0.0   90.0 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB
   00m 03s   00m 00s    00h 37m    0.1   99.9    0.0 KB
>>        3    0.00    0.01         1    0.0  867.1 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB  148.4 KB
   00m 04s   00m 00s    01h 01m    0.1   99.9    0.0 KB
>>        4    0.00    0.00       200    0.0    0.0 KB    0.0 KB  148.4 KB    0.0 KB
   00m 02s   00m 00s    00h 27m    0.1   99.9    0.0 KB
>>        5    6.00    1.15        23    0.2  402.1 MB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB    1.3 GB
   00m 44s   00m 00s    09h 19m    1.9   98.1    0.0 KB
>>        6   17.00   19.92       601    7.1   17.2 GB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB    1.8 GB
   02m 04s   00m 14s    25h 50m   11.7   88.3    0.0 KB
>>        9    6.00    0.73       200    2.9    6.9 GB    0.0 KB  409.5 MB    2.8 GB
   00m 46s   00m 00s    09h 37m    1.2   98.8    0.0 KB
>>       10   13.00    2.27        39    0.3  807.8 MB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB    2.5 GB
   01m 33s   00m 01s    19h 34m    1.7   98.3    0.0 KB
>>       11    0.00    0.00         2    0.0   31.5 KB    0.0 KB    0.0 KB   60.0 KB
   00m 00s   00m 00s    00h 06m    0.1   99.9    0.0 KB
>>       12    1.00    2.15       200    0.3  758.7 MB    0.0 KB    2.3 GB    1.5 GB
   00m 12s   00m 01s    02h 35m   12.6   87.4    0.0 KB
>>       13    3.00    5.91       200    0.0    0.0 KB    0.0 KB    1.5 GB   47.5 GB
   00m 25s   00m 04s    05h 12m   17.1   82.9    0.0 KB
>>       14   13.00   19.83       200    0.0    0.0 KB    0.0 KB   50.3 GB   50.3 GB
   01m 36s   00m 14s    20h 04m   14.9   85.1    0.0 KB
>>       15   34.00   48.02       200    0.0    0.0 KB    0.0 KB   53.2 GB    0.0 KB
   04m 03s   00m 34s    50h 42m   14.3   85.7    0.0 KB
>>
>>
>>  Stage-ID WallClock  OneCore       Task   PRatio    -----Task------   OIRatio  |*
ShuffleWrite% ReadFetch%   GC%  *|
>>           Stage%     ComputeHours  Count            Skew   StageSkew
>>       0    0.32         00h 00m       1    0.00     1.00     0.37     0.00     |*
  0.00           0.00    15.10  *|
>>       1    0.35         00h 00m       1    0.00     1.00     0.38     0.00     |*
  0.00           0.00    15.56  *|
>>       2    0.43         00h 00m       1    0.00     1.00     0.45     0.00     |*
  0.00           0.00     8.88  *|
>>       3    0.70         00h 00m       1    0.00     1.00     0.63     0.17     |*
  4.51           0.00     6.74  *|
>>       4    0.31         00h 00m     200    0.27    37.67     0.10     0.00     |*
  0.00           0.04    23.79  *|
>>       5    6.38         00h 10m      23    0.03     1.42     0.83     3.18     |*
  1.08           0.00     2.72  *|
>>       6   17.68         03h 00m     601    0.80     2.07     0.29     0.10     |*
  0.60           0.00     1.90  *|
>>       9    6.58         00h 06m     200    0.27     5.20     0.16     0.38     |*
  4.74          13.24     4.04  *|
>>      10   13.40         00h 20m      39    0.05     1.67     0.52     3.17     |*
  1.10           0.00     1.96  *|
>>      11    0.07         00h 00m       2    0.00     1.00     0.58     1.91     |*
 13.59           0.00     0.00  *|
>>      12    1.77         00h 19m     200    0.27     1.99     0.92     0.50     |*
  1.85          19.63     3.09  *|
>>      13    3.57         00h 53m     200    0.27     1.59     1.00    31.42     |*
  6.06          12.25     1.33  *|
>>      14   13.74         02h 59m     200    0.27     1.65     0.89     1.00     |*
  1.84           2.38     0.83  *|
>>      15   34.69         07h 15m     200    0.27     1.88     0.98     0.00     |*
  0.00           4.21     0.88  *|
>>
>> PRatio:        Number of tasks in stage divided by number of cores. Represents degree
of
>>                parallelism in the stage
>> TaskSkew:      Duration of largest task in stage divided by duration of median task.
>>                Represents degree of skew in the stage
>> TaskStageSkew: Duration of largest task in stage divided by total duration of the
stage.
>>                Represents the impact of the largest task on stage time.
>> OIRatio:       Output to input ration. Total output of the stage (results + shuffle
write)
>>                divided by total input (input data + shuffle read)
>>
>> These metrics below represent distribution of time within the stage
>>
>> ShuffleWrite:  Amount of time spent in shuffle writes across all tasks in the given
>>                stage as a percentage
>> ReadFetch:     Amount of time spent in shuffle read across all tasks in the given
>>                stage as a percentage
>> GC:            Amount of time spent in GC across all tasks in the given stage as
a
>>                percentage
>>
>> If the stage contributes large percentage to overall application time, we could look
into
>> these metrics to check which part (Shuffle write, read fetch or GC is responsible)
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> rohitk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Shmuel Blitz <
>> shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rohit,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the analysis.
>>>
>>> I can use repartition on the slow task. But how can I tell what part of
>>> the code is in charge of the slow tasks?
>>>
>>> It would be great if you could further explain the rest of the output.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Shmuel
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Rohit Karlupia <rohitk@qubole.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Shamuel for trying out sparklens!
>>>>
>>>> Couple of things that I noticed:
>>>> 1) 250 executors is probably overkill for this job. It would run in
>>>> same time with around 100.
>>>> 2) Many of stages that take long time have only 200 tasks where as we
>>>> have 750 cores available for the job. 200 is the default value for
>>>> spark.sql.shuffle.partitions.  Alternatively you could try increasing
>>>> the value of spark.sql.shuffle.partitions to latest 750.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> rohitk
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Shmuel Blitz <
>>>> shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I ran it on a single job.
>>>>> SparkLens has an overhead on the job duration. I'm not ready to enable
>>>>> it by default on all our jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached is the output.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still trying to understand what exactly it means.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Fawze Abujaber <fawzeaj@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shmuel, Were you able to run on a cluster level or for a specific
job?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you configure it on the spark-default.conf?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 at 10:34 Shmuel Blitz <
>>>>>> shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to let you know, I have managed to run SparkLens on our
cluster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I switched to the spark_1.6 branch, and also compiled against
the
>>>>>>> specific image of Spark we are using (cdh5.7.6).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I need to figure out what the output means... :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shmuel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Fawze Abujaber <fawzeaj@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quick question:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how to add the  --jars /path/to/sparklens_2.11-0.1.0.jar
to the
>>>>>>>> spark-default conf, should it be using:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> spark.driver.extraClassPath /path/to/sparklens_2.11-0.1.0.jar
or i
>>>>>>>> should use spark.jars option? anyone who could give an example
how it
>>>>>>>> should be, and if i the path for the jar should be an hdfs
path as i'm
>>>>>>>> using it in cluster mode.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Fawze Abujaber <fawzeaj@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Shmuel,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you compile the code against the right branch for
Spark 1.6.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I tested it and it looks working and now i'm testing
the branch
>>>>>>>>> for a wide tests, Please use the branch for Spark 1.6
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Shmuel Blitz <
>>>>>>>>> shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rohit,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this great tool.
>>>>>>>>>> I tried running a spark job with the tool, but it
failed with an *IncompatibleClassChangeError
>>>>>>>>>> *Exception.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have opened an issue on Github.(https://github.com/qub
>>>>>>>>>> ole/sparklens/issues/1)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shmuel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Shmuel Blitz <
>>>>>>>>>> shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We will give this a try and report back.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Shmuel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Rohit Karlupia
<
>>>>>>>>>>> rohitk@qubole.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please share how it works and how it doesn't.
Both help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fawaze, just made few changes to make this
work with spark 1.6.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please try building from branch *spark_1.6*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> rohitk
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Fawze Abujaber
<
>>>>>>>>>>>> fawzeaj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's super amazing .... i see it was
tested on spark 2.0.0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above, what about Spark 1.6 which is
still part of Cloudera's main versions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have a vast Spark applications with
version 1.6.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Holden
Karau <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> holden@pigscanfly.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Super exciting! I look forward to
digging through it this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weekend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:33 PM ☼
R Nair (रविशंकर नायर) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ravishankar.nair@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent. You filled a missing
link.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Passion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:36
PM, Rohit Karlupia <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rohitk@qubole.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Happy to announce the availability
of Sparklens as open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source project. It helps
in understanding the  scalability limits of spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications and can be a
useful guide on the path towards tuning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications for lower runtime
or cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please clone from here: https://github.com/qubole/sparklens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Old blogpost: https://www.qubole.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> om/blog/introducing-quboles-spark-tuning-tool/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rohitk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: Thanks for the patience.
It took couple of months to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get back on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Shmuel Blitz
>>>>>>>>>>> Big Data Developer
>>>>>>>>>>> Email: shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com
>>>>>>>>>>> www.similarweb.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/SimilarWeb/>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/429838/>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/similarweb>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Shmuel Blitz
>>>>>>>>>> Big Data Developer
>>>>>>>>>> Email: shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com
>>>>>>>>>> www.similarweb.com
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/SimilarWeb/>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/429838/>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/similarweb>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Shmuel Blitz
>>>>>>> Big Data Developer
>>>>>>> Email: shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com
>>>>>>> www.similarweb.com
>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/SimilarWeb/>
>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/429838/>
>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/similarweb>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Shmuel Blitz
>>>>> Big Data Developer
>>>>> Email: shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com
>>>>> www.similarweb.com
>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/SimilarWeb/>
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/429838/>
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/similarweb>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shmuel Blitz
>>> Big Data Developer
>>> Email: shmuel.blitz@similarweb.com
>>> www.similarweb.com
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/SimilarWeb/>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/429838/>
>>> <https://twitter.com/similarweb>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Take Care
> Fawze Abujaber
>

Mime
View raw message