I'm fitting a large number of models in Pyspark via Spark ML (see: How best to fit many Spark ML models) and I'm wondering what I can do to speed up individual fits.
My data set is a spark data frame that's approximately 50gb, read in from libsvm format, and I'm running on a dynamically allocated YARN cluster with allocated executor memory = 10gb. Fitting a logistic regression classifier, it creates about 30 steps of treeAggregate at LogisticRegression.scala:1018, with alternating shuffle reads and shuffle writes of ~340mb each.
Executors come and go but it seems like the typical stage runtime is about 5 seconds. Is there anything I can look at to improve performance on these fits?
As a general job in Spark, you can do some stuff to improve your training time.
spark.driver.memory look out for your driver memory, some algorithms do shuffle data to your driver (in order to reduce computing time), so it might be a source of enhancement or at least one point of failure to keep an eye at.
Change the spark.executor.memory so it uses the maximum needed by the job but it also uses as little as much so you can fit more executors in each node (machine) on the cluster, and as you have more workers, you'll have more computer power to handle the job.
spark.sql.shuffle.partitions since you probably use DataFrames to manipulate data, try different values on this parameter so that you can execute more tasks per executor.
spark.executor.cores use it below 5 and you're good, above that, you probably will increase the time an executor has to handle the "shuffle" of tasks inside of it.
cache/persist: try to persist your data before huge transformations, if you're afraid of your executors not being able to handle it use StorageLevel.DISK_AND_MEMORY, so you're able to use both.
Important: all of this is based on my own experience alone training algorithms using Spark ML over datasets with 1TB-5TB and 30-50 features, I've researched to improve my own jobs but I'm not qualified as a source of truth for your problem. Learn more about your data and watch the logs of your executors for further enhancements.
Related
I have a Spark batch job that consumes data from a Kafka topic with 300 partitions. As part of my job, there are various transformations like group by and join which require shuffling.
I want to know if I should go with the default value of spark.sql.shuffle.partitions which are 200 or set it to 300 which is the same as the number of input partitions in Kafka and hence the number of parallel tasks spawn to read it.
Thanks
In the chapter on Optimizing and Tuning Spark Applications of the book "Learning Spark, 2nd edition" (O'Reilly) it is written that the default value
"is too high for smaller or streaming workloads; you may want to reduce it to a lower value such as the number of cores on the executors or less.
There is no magic formula for the number of shuffle partitions to set for the shuffle stage; the number may vary depending on your use case, data set, number of cores, and the amount of executors memory available - it's a trial-and-error-approach."
Your goal should be to reduce the amount of small partitions being sent accross the network to executor's task.
There is a recording of a talk on Tuning Apache Spark for Large Scale Workloads which also talks about this configuration.
However, when you are using Spark 3.x, you do not think about that much as the Adaptive Query Execution (AQE) framework will dynamically coalesce shuffle partitions based on the shuffle file statistics. More details on the AQE framework are given in this blog.
1.) I understand that "Spark's operators spills data to disk if it does not fit memory allowing it to run well on any sized data".
If this is true, why do we ever get OOM (Out of Memory) errors?
2.) Increasing the no. of executor cores increases parallelism. Would that also increase the chances of OOM, because the same memory is now divided into smaller parts for each core?
3.) Spark is much more susceptible to OOM because it performs operations in memory as compared to Hive, which repeatedly reads, writes into disk. Is that correct?
There is one angle that you need to consider there. You may get memory leaks if the data is not properly distributed. That means that you need to distribute your data evenly (if possible) on the Tasks so that you reduce shuffling as much as possible and make those Tasks to manage their own data. So if you need to perform a join, if data is distributed randomly, every Task (and therefore executor) will have to:
See what data they have
Send data to other executors (and tasks) to provide the same keys they need
Request the data that is needed by that task to the others
All that data exchange may cause network bottlenecks if you have a large dataset and also will make every Task to hold their data in memory plus whatever has been sent and temporary objects. All of those will blow up memory.
So to prevent that situation you can:
Load the data already repartitioned. By that I mean, if you are loading from a DB, try Spark stride as defined here. Please refer to the partitionColumn, lowerBound, upperBound attributes. That way you will create a number of partitions on the dataframe that will set the data on different tasks based on the criteria you need. If you are going to use a join of two dataframes, try similar approach on them so that partitions are similar (for not to say same) and that will prevent shuffling over network.
When you define partitions, try to make those values as evenly distributed among tasks as possible
The size of each partition should fit on memory. Although there could be spill to disk, that would slow down performance
If you don't have a column that make the data evenly distributed, try to create one that would have n number of different values, depending on the n number of tasks that you have
If you are reading from a csv, that would make it harder to create partitions, but still it's possible. You can either split the data (csv) on multiple files and create multiple dataframes (performing a union after they are loaded) or you can read that big csv and apply a repartition on the column you need. That will create shuffling as well, but it will be done once if you cache the dataframe already repartitioned
Reading from parquet it's possible that you may have multiple files but if they are not evenly distributed (because the previous process that generated didn't do it well) you may end up on OOM errors. To prevent that situation, you can load and apply repartition on the dataframe too
Or another trick valid for csv, parquet files, orc, etc. is to create a Hive table on top of that and run a query from Spark running a distribute by clause on the data, so that you can make Hive to redistribute, instead of Spark
To your question about Hive and Spark, I think you are right up to some point. Depending on the execute engine that Hive uses in your case (map/reduce, Tez, Hive on Spark, LLAP) you can have different behaviours. With map/reduce, as they are mostly disk operations, the chance to have a OOM is much lower than on Spark. Actually from Memory point of view, map/reduce is not that affected because of a skewed data distribution. But (IMHO) your goal should be to find always the best data distribution for the Spark job you are running and that will prevent that problem
Another consideration is if you are testing in a dev environment that doesn't have same data as in a prod environment. I suppose the data distribution should be similar although volumes may differ a lot (I am talking from experience ;)). In that case, when you assign Spark tuning parameters on the spark-submit command, they may be different in prod. So you need to invest some time on finding the best approach on dev and fine tune in prod
Huge majority of OOM in Spark are on the driver, not executors. This is usually a result of running .collect or similar actions on a dataset that won't fit in the driver memory.
Spark does a lot of work under the hood to parallelize the work, when using structured APIs (in contrast to RDDs) the chances of causing OOM on executor are really slim. Some combinations of cluster configuration and jobs can cause memory pressure that will impact performance and cause lots of garbage collection to happen so you need to address it, however spark should be able to handle low memory without explicit exception.
Not really - as above, Spark should be able to recover from memory issues when using structured APIs, however it may need intervention if you see garbage collection and performance impact.
I'm relatively new to spark and I have a few questions related to the tuning optimizations with respect to the spark submit command.
I have followed : How to tune spark executor number, cores and executor memory?
and I understand how to utilise maximum resources out of my spark cluster.
However, I was recently asked how to define the number of cores, memory and cores when I have a relatively smaller operation to do as if I give maximum resources, it is going to be underutilised .
For instance,
if I have to just do a merge job (read files from hdfs and write one single huge file back to hdfs using coalesce) for about 60-70 GB (assume each file is of 128 mb in size which is the block size of HDFS) of data(in avro format without compression), what would be the ideal memory, no of executor and cores required for this?
Assume I have the configurations of my nodes same as the one mentioned in the link above.
I can't understand the concept of how much memory will be used up by the entire job provided there are no joins, aggregations etc.
The amount of memory you will need depends on what you run before the write operation. If all you're doing is reading data combining it and writing it out, then you will need very little memory per cpu because the dataset is never fully materialized before writing it out. If you're doing joins/group-by/other aggregate operations all of those will require much ore memory. The exception to this rule is that spark isn't really tuned for large files and generally is much more performant when dealing with sets of reasonably sized files. Ultimately the best way to get your answers is to run your job with the default parameters and see what blows up.
I am Using spark Word2vec API to build word vector. The code:
val w2v = new Word2Vec()
.setInputCol("words")
.setOutputCol("features")
.setMinCount(5)
But, this process is so slow. I check spark monitor web, there was two jobs to run long time.
My computer environment have 24 cores CPU and 100G memory, how to use them efficiently?
I would try increasing the amount of partitions in the dataframe that you are doing the feature extraction on. the stragglers are likely due to skew in the data causing most of the data to be processed by one node or core. If possible, distribute the data by logical partitioning, if not then create a random even distribution.
We have a requirement where a calculation must be done in near real time (with in 100ms at most) and involves moderately complex computation which can be parallelized easily. One of the options we are considering is to use spark in batch mode apart from Apache Hadoop YARN. I've read that submitting batch jobs to spark has huge overhead however. Is these a way we can reduce/eliminate this overhead?
Spark best utilizes available resources i.e. memory and cores. Spark uses the concept of Data Locality.
If data and the code that operates on it are together than computation tends to be fast. But if code and data are separated, one must move to the other. Typically it is faster to ship serialized code from place to place than a chunk of data because code size is much smaller than data.
If you are low on resources surely scheduling and processing time will shoot. Spark builds its scheduling around this general principle of data locality.
Spark prefers to schedule all tasks at the best locality level, but this is not always possible.
Check https://spark.apache.org/docs/1.2.0/tuning.html#data-locality