I have four questions. Suppose in spark I have 3 worker nodes. Each worker node has 3 executors and each executor has 3 cores. Each executor has 5 gb memory. (Total 6 executors, 27 cores and 15gb memory). What will happen if:
I have 30 data partitions. Each partition is of size 6 gb. Optimally, the number of partitions must be equal to number of cores, since each core executes one partition/task (One task per partition). Now in this case, how will each executor-core will process the partition since partition size is greater than the available executor memory? Note: I'm not calling cache() or persist(), it's simply that i'm applying some narrow transformations like map() and filter() on my rdd.
Will spark automatically try to store the partitions on disk? (I'm not calling cache() or persist() but merely just transformations are happening after an action is called)
Since I have partitions (30) greater than the number of available cores (27) so at max, my cluster can process 27 partitions, what will happen to the remaining 3 partitions? Will they wait for the occupied cores to get freed?
If i'm calling persist() whose storage level is set to MEMORY_AND_DISK, then if partition size is greater than memory, it will spill data to the disk? On which disk this data will be stored? The worker node's external HDD?
I answer as I know things on each part, possibly disregarding a few of your assertions:
I have four questions. Suppose in spark I have 3 worker nodes. Each worker node has 3 executors and each executor has 3 cores. Each executor has 5 gb memory. (Total 6 executors, 27 cores and 15gb memory). What will happen if:
>>> I would use 1 Executor, 1 Core. That is the generally accepted paradigm afaik.
I have 30 data partitions. Each partition is of size 6 gb. Optimally, the number of partitions must be equal to number of cores, since each core executes one partition/task (One task per partition). Now in this case, how will each executor-core will process the partition since partition size is greater than the available executor memory? Note: I'm not calling cache() or persist(), it's simply that I'm applying some narrow transformations like map() and filter() on my rdd. >>> The number of partitions being the same of number of cores is not true. You can service 1000 partitions with 10 cores, processing one at a time. What if you have 100K partition and on-prem? Unlikely you will get 100K Executors. >>> Moving on and leaving Driver-side collect issues to one side: You may not have enough memory for a given operation on an Executor; Spark can spill to files to disk at the expense of speed of processing. However, the partition size should not exceed a maximum size, was beefed up some time ago. Using multi-core Executors failure can occur, i.e. OOM's, also a result of GC-issues, a difficult topic.
Will spark automatically try to store the partitions on disk? (I'm not calling cache() or persist() but merely just transformations are happening after an action is called) >>> Not if it can avoid it, but when memory is tight, eviction / spilling to disk can and will occur, and in some cases re-computation from source or last checkpoint will occur.
Since I have partitions (30) greater than the number of available cores (27) so at max, my cluster can process 27 partitions, what will happen to the remaining 3 partitions? Will they wait for the occupied cores to get freed? >>> They will be serviced by a free Executor at a point in time.
If I'm calling persist() whose storage level is set to MEMORY_AND_DISK, then if partition size is greater than memory, it will spill data to the disk? On which disk this data will be stored? The worker node's external HDD? >>> Yes, and it will be spilled to the local file system. I think you can configure for HDFS via a setting, but local disks are faster.
This an insightful blog: https://medium.com/swlh/spark-oom-error-closeup-462c7a01709d
Your data partition size looks bigger than your Core memory. Your Core memory is ~1.6 GB (5GB/3 Core). This will be a problem as your partition will not be able to process in the Core. To resolve this, you can try:
increasing the number of partitions such that each partition is < Core memory ~1.6 GB. So increase them to something like 150 partitions.
If you keep the partitions the same, you should try increasing your Executor memory and maybe also reducing number of Cores in your Executors.
If everything goes well it will not need to store partitions on disk. However, if it is not able to find enough memory, it will find disk as a backup. If you want to store your data on Disk and persist it for some reason, you need to call persist(DISK_ONLY).
They will wait until one of the Cores is available.
Yes, it will spill on Disk. Where will depend on your cluster configuration I believe.
Related
Sometimes, you will get an OutOfMemoryError not because your RDDs don’t fit in memory, but because the working set of one of your tasks, such as one of the reduce tasks in groupByKey, was too large. Spark’s shuffle operations (sortByKey, groupByKey, reduceByKey, join, etc) build a hash table within each task to perform the grouping, which can often be large. The simplest fix here is to increase the level of parallelism, so that each task’s input set is smaller.
I think it this way, please correct me if I am wrong.
Suppose there are 2 Data Nodes to process the Dataset and both these nodes collectively has a memory of 32GB(16 GB per Data Node). The data set size is 100 GB and let us suppose this data, when read by spark, is partitioned into 10 partitions of 10GB each. It is obvious that the 100GB file cannot be fit into 32 GB RAM at a time. so the partitions have to be loaded into memory and processed in a iterative manner. so I assume as below.
first iteration, 2 partitions, 10GB each are loaded into memory on each data node.
second iteration, 2 partitions, 10GB each are loaded into memory on each data node.
....
....
Fifth iteration, 2 partitions, 10GB each are loaded into memory on each data node.
If this is how the spark is processing, during every iteration, only 2 partitions are loaded into memory. Does that mean, the other partitions which were unable to be accommodated in memory, were read but spilled to disk and they are waiting for the memory to be freed? or those partitions are not read at all and they will be read only when the resources are available. which is true?
During processing if there is a need to groupby/reduceby/join, then it mandates a shuffle. so if one of the shuffle partition is greater than RAM size then the job will fail with OOM error. Example, 10 partitions were processed and shuffled. Now the shuffle partitions are only 4 partitions with 25GB each.
(Default shuffle partitions are 200, but only 4 partitions have the total data remaining are empty.) since the shuffle partition size is greater than 16MB RAM, will the spark job fail? Is my understanding correct?
I understand that, you do not really need that your data fit in memory. Spark processes the data on partition basis. But My question is what if the partition itself is not fitting in memory. Would it still spill the data to disk and start processing or it will fail with OOM error?
The second question I have is, If another spark job(Job2) is triggered during the above spark job(job1) is under execution, and suppose this is also having 100GB file to process with 10 partitions of 10GB each. so when job1 Iteration1 is under execution, there is only 6 MB free slot available in the memory. The job2's partition of 10GB cannot be loaded into memory for processing job2. so will the Job2 wait till the memory is freed up? or will this job also fail with OOM error?
The explanation (bold) is correct.
On your comments:
Unless you explicitly repartition, your partitions will be HDFS block size related, the 128MB size and as many that make up that file.
Then you have number of executors, say 2, per Worker / Data Node. Then max 4 tasks / partitions will be active at any given time.
What would be the point of loading all partitions to memory if you can service at most 4? You would be clogging up the system to the detriment of other Spark Apps. This is all like a normal OS then.
Of course it is a bit more complicated, e.g. if you have 10 Data Nodes and allocation only 2 Executors, there is traffic to move stuff about. Just keeping it simple.
OOM errors only occur if a partition exceeds max partition size. For the rest disk space is needed for spilling.
I am using databricks with Azure, so I don't have a way to provide the number of executors and memory per executors.
Let's consider I have the following configuration.
10 Worker nodes, each with 4 cores and 10 GB of memory.
it's a standalone configuration
input read size is 100 GB
now if I set my shuffle partition to 10, (less than total cores, 40). What would happen?
will it create total of 10 executors, one per node, with each executor occupying all the cores and all the memory?
If you don't use dynamic allocation, you will end up leaving most cores unused during execution. Think about you have 40 "slots" for computation available, but only 10 tasks to process, so 30 "slots" will be empty (just idle).
I have to add that the above is a very simplified situation. In reality, you can have multiple stages running in parallel, so depending on your query, you will still have all 40 cores utilized (see e.g. Does stages in an application run parallel in spark?)
Note also that spark.sql.shuffle.partitions is not the only parameter which determines the number of tasks/partitions. You can have different number of partitions for
reading files
if you modify your query using repartition, e.g. when using :
df
.repartition(100,$"key")
.groupBy($"key").count
your value of spark.sql.shuffle.partitions=10 will be overwritten by 100 in this exchange step
What your discribing as an expectation is named dynamic allocation on Spark. You can provide min and max allocation and then depending on amount of partiton the framework will be scaled. https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/configuration.html#dynamic-allocation
But with only 10 partition on a 100 gb file you will have outOfMemoryErrors
I am interested to know the following nitty gritties of spark parallelism and Partitioning
How many partitions can a executor hold in spark?
How are the partitions distributed (mechanism) among the executors?
How to set the size of the partition. Would like to know the relevant the config parameter.
Does executor store all the partitions in memory? If not when spilled to disk does it spill entire partition to disk or a part of partition to disk?
5 When there are 2 cores per executor but there are 5 partition in that executor then
Not quite the right way to look at it. An Executor holds nothing, it just does work.
A Partition is processed by a Core that has been assigned to an Executor. An Executor typically has 1 core but can have more than 1 such Core.
An App has Actions that translate to 1 or more Jobs.
A Job has Stages (based on Shuffle Boundaries).
Stages have Tasks, the number of these depends on number of Partitions.
Parallel processing of the Partitions depends on number of Cores allocated to Executors.
Spark is scalable in terms of Cores, Memory and Disk. The latter two in relation to your questions means that if the Partitions cannot all fit into Memory on the Worker for your Job, then that Partition or more will spill in its entirety to Disk.
I have two questions around performance tuning in Spark:
I understand one of the key things for controlling parallelism in the spark job is the number of partitions that exist in the RDD that is being processed, and then controlling the executors and cores processing these partitions. Can I assume this to be true:
# of executors * # of executor cores shoud be <= # of partitions. i.e to say one partition is always processed in one core of one executor. There is no point having more executors*cores than the number of partitions
I understand that having a high number of cores per executor can have a -ve impact on things like HDFS writes, but here's my second question, purely from a data processing point of view what is the difference between the two? For e.g. if I have 10 node cluster what would be the difference between these two jobs (assuming there's ample memory per node to process everything):
5 executors * 2 executor cores
2 executors * 5 executor cores
Assuming there's infinite memory and CPU, from a performance point of view should we expect the above two to perform the same?
Most of the time using larger executors (more memory, more cores) are better. One: larger executor with large memory can easily support broadcast joins and do away with shuffle. Second: since tasks are not created equal, statistically larger executors have better chance of surviving OOM issues.
The only problem with large executors is GC pauses. G1GC helps.
In my experience, if I had a cluster with 10 nodes, I would go for 20 spark executors. The details of the job matter a lot, so some testing will help determine the optional configuration.
When I submit job spark in yarn cluster I see spark-UI I get 4 stages of jobs but, memory used is very low in all nodes and it says 0 out of 4 gb used. I guess that might be because I left it in default partition.
Files size ranges are betweenr 1 mb to 100 mb in s3. There are around 2700 files with size of 26 GB. And exactly same 2700 jobs were running in stage 2.
Is it worth to repartition something around 640 partitons, would it improve the performace? or
It doesn't matter if partition is granular than actually required? or
My submit parameters needs to be addressed?
Cluster details,
Cluster with 10 nodes
Overall memory 500 GB
Overall vCores 64
--excutor-memory 16 g
--num-executors 16
--executor-cores 1
Actually it runs on 17 cores out of 64. I dont want to increase the number of cores since others might use the cluster.
You partition, and repartition for following reasons:
To make sure we have enough work to distribute to the distinct cores in our cluster (nodes * cores_per_node). Obviously we need to tune the number of executors, cores per executor, and memory per executor to make that happen as intended.
To make sure we evenly distribute work: the smaller the partitions, the lesser the chance than one core might have much more work to do than all other cores. Skewed distribution can have a huge effect on total lapse time if the partitions are too big.
To keep partitions in managable sizes. Not to big, and not to small so we dont overtax GC. Also bigger partitions might have issues when we have non-linear O.
To small partitions will create too much process overhead.
As you might have noticed, there will be a goldilocks zone. Testing will help you determine ideal partition size.
Note that it is ok to have much more partitions than we have cores. Queuing partitions to be assigned a task is something that I design for.
Also make sure you configure your spark job properly otherwise:
Make sure you do not have too many executors. One or Very Few executors per node is more than enough. Fewer executors will have less overhead, as they work in shared memory space, and individual tasks are handled by threads instead of processes. There is a huge amount of overhead to starting up a process, but Threads are pretty lightweight.
Tasks need to talk to each other. If they are in the same executor, they can do that in-memory. If they are in different executors (processes), then that happens over a socket (overhead). If that is over multiple nodes, that happens over a traditional network connection (more overhead).
Assign enough memory to your executors. When using Yarn as the scheduler, it will fit the executors by default by their memory, not by the CPU you declare to use.
I do not know what your situation is (you made the node names invisible), but if you only have a single node with 15 cores, then 16 executors do not make sense. Instead, set it up with One executor, and 16 cores per executor.