I am trying to understand the behavior of Java 8 parallel stream inside spark parallelism. When I run the below code, I am expecting the output size of listOfThings to be the same as input size. But that's not the case, I sometimes have missing items in my output. This behavior is not consistent. If I just iterate through the iterator instead of using parallelStream, everything is fine. Count matches every time.
// listRDD.count = 10
JavaRDD test = listRDD.mapPartitions(iterator -> {
List listOfThings = IteratorUtils.toList(iterator);
return listOfThings.parallelStream.map(
//some stuff here
).collect(Collectors.toList());
});
// test.count = 9
// test.count = 10
// test.count = 8
// test.count = 7
it's a very good question.
Whats going on here is Race Condition. when you parallelize the stream then stream split the full list into several equal parts [Based on avaliable threads and size of list] then it tries to run subparts independently on each avaliable thread to perform the work.
But you are also using apache spark which is famous for computing the work faster i.e. general purpose computation engine. Spark uses the same approach [parallelize the work] to perform the action.
Now Here in this Scenerio what is happening is Spark already parallelized the whole work then inside this you are again parallelizing the work due to this the race condition starts i.e. spark executor starts processing the work and then you parallelized the work then stream process aquires other thread and start processing IF THE THREAD THAT WAS PROCESSING STREAM WORK FINISHES WORK BEFORE THE SPARK EXECUTOR COMPLETE HIS WORK THEN IT ADD THE RESULT OTHERWISE SPARK EXECUTOR CONTINUES TO REPORT RESULT TO MASTER.
This is not a good approach to re-parallelize the work it will always gives you the pain let the spark do it for you.
Hope you understand whats going on here
Thanks
Related
I recently began to use Spark to process huge amount of data (~1TB). And have been able to get the job done too. However I am still trying to understand its working. Consider the following scenario:
Set reference time (say tref)
Do any one of the following two tasks:
a. Read large amount of data (~1TB) from tens of thousands of files using SciSpark into RDDs (OR)
b. Read data as above and do additional preprossing work and store the results in a DataFrame
Print the size of the RDD or DataFrame as applicable and time difference wrt to tref (ie, t0a/t0b)
Do some computation
Save the results
In other words, 1b creates a DataFrame after processing RDDs generated exactly as in 1a.
My query is the following:
Is it correct to infer that t0b – t0a = time required for preprocessing? Where can I find an reliable reference for the same?
Edit: Explanation added for the origin of question ...
My suspicion stems from Spark's lazy computation approach and its capability to perform asynchronous jobs. Can/does it initiate subsequent (preprocessing) tasks that can be computed while thousands of input files are being read? The origin of the suspicion is in the unbelievable performance (with results verified okay) I see that look too fantastic to be true.
Thanks for any reply.
I believe something like this could assist you (using Scala):
def timeIt[T](op: => T): Float = {
val start = System.currentTimeMillis
val res = op
val end = System.currentTimeMillis
(end - start) / 1000f
}
def XYZ = {
val r00 = sc.parallelize(0 to 999999)
val r01 = r00.map(x => (x,(x,x,x,x,x,x,x)))
r01.join(r01).count()
}
val time1 = timeIt(XYZ)
// or like this on next line
//val timeN = timeIt(r01.join(r01).count())
println(s"bla bla $time1 seconds.")
You need to be creative and work incrementally with Actions that cause actual execution. This has limitations thus. Lazy evaluation and such.
On the other hand, Spark Web UI records every Action, and records Stage duration for the Action.
In general: performance measuring in shared environments is difficult. Dynamic allocation in Spark in a noisy cluster means that you hold on to acquired resources during the Stage, but upon successive runs of the same or next Stage you may get less resources. But this is at least indicative and you can run in a less busy period.
I have two Spark streams running in my application. At some point i need to see if first stream has created a table , so that i can use that Table in second stream.
I am using Accumulator as an indicator. So first stream updates the value of this accumulator after doing its job, and then the second stream executes its logic if the accumulator value has changed
dStream1.foreachRdd(rdd -> {
--creates ABC Sql table --
accumulator1.setValue(1);
});
dStream2.foreachRdd(rdd -> {
if(accumulator.value == 1){
--uses ABC Sql table--
}
});
so far it works fine, as dStream2 keeps on running the foreachRdd loop , and when it finds the accumulator value to be 1, it executes the logic.
But i want to find out more efficient way in which dStream2 waits until the value of accumulator changes.
Is it possible to do wait-notify pattern in Spark?
If we are running multiple streams, then the "foreachRDD" is executed one at a time. So they will not conflict with each other if they are sharing any resource or working on a common object.
Even if you want to use "spark.streaming.concurrentJobs" to run the streams or jobs parallely, you can manage the concurrency by using "java.util.concurrent.locks" package.
I am actually running out of options.
In my spark streaming application. I want to keep a state on some keys. I am getting events from Kafka. Then I extract keys from the event, say userID. When there is no events coming from Kafka I want to keep updating a counter relative to each user ID each 3 seconds, since I configured the batchduration of my StreamingContext with 3 seconds.
Now the way I am doing it might be ugly, but at least it works: I have an accumulableCollection like this:
val userID = ssc.sparkContext.accumulableCollection(new mutable.HashMap[String,Long]())
Then I create a "fake" event and keep pushing it to my spark streaming context as the following:
val rddQueue = new mutable.SynchronizedQueue[RDD[String]]()
for ( i <- 1 to 100) {
rddQueue += ssc.sparkContext.makeRDD(Seq("FAKE_MESSAGE"))
Thread.sleep(3000)
}
val inputStream = ssc.queueStream(rddQueue)
inputStream.foreachRDD( UPDATE_MY_ACCUMULATOR )
This would let me access to my accumulatorCollection and update all the counters of all userIDs. Up to now everything works fine, however when I change my loop from:
for ( i <- 1 to 100) {} #This is for test
To:
while (true) {} #This is to let me access and update my accumulator through the whole application life cycle
Then when I run my ./spark-submit, my application gets stuck on this stage:
15/12/10 18:09:00 INFO BlockManagerMasterActor: Registering block manager slave1.cluster.example:38959 with 1060.3 MB RAM, BlockManagerId(1, slave1.cluster.example, 38959)
Any clue on how to resolve this ? Is there a pretty straightforward way that would allow me updating the values of my userIDs (rather than creating an unuseful RDD and pushing it periodically to the queuestream)?
The reason why the while (true) ... version does not work is that the control never returns to the main execution line and therefore nothing below that line gets executed. To solve that specific problem, we should execute the while loop in a separate thread. Future { while () ...} should probably work.
Also, the Thread.sleep(3000) when populating the QueueDStream in the example above is not needed. Spark Streaming will consume one message from the queue on each streaming interval.
A better way to trigger that inflow of 'tick' messages would be with the ConstantInputDStream that plays back the same RDD at each streaming interval, therefore removing the need to create the RDD inflow with the QueueDStream.
That said, it looks to me that the current approach seems fragile and would need revision.
I am working on an iterative algorithm using Apache Spark, which claims to be perfect for just that. The examples I have found so far creates a single job with a hardcoded number of iterations. I need the algorithm to run until a certain condition is met.
My current implementation launches a new job for each iteration something like this:
var data = sc.textFile(...).map().cache()
while(data.filter(...).isEmpty()) {
// Run the Algorithm (also handles caching)
val data = performStep(data)
}
This is pretty inefficient. Between each iteration I wait a long time for the next job to start. For four servers I wait around 10 seconds in between each job, for 32 servers is almost 100 seconds. In total I end up spending at least half of the runtime waiting in between jobs.
I find conditional iterations quite common in certain types of algorithms, for example early stopping criteria in machine learning. So I am hoping this can be improved.
Is there a more efficient way of doing this? For example away to run this conditional repetition in a single job? Thanks!
I want to use an accumulator to gather some stats about the data I'm manipulating on a Spark job. Ideally, I would do that while the job computes the required transformations, but since Spark would re-compute tasks on different cases the accumulators would not reflect true metrics. Here is how the documentation describes this:
For accumulator updates performed inside actions only, Spark
guarantees that each task’s update to the accumulator will only be
applied once, i.e. restarted tasks will not update the value. In
transformations, users should be aware of that each task’s update may
be applied more than once if tasks or job stages are re-executed.
This is confusing since most actions do not allow running custom code (where accumulators can be used), they mostly take the results from previous transformations (lazily). The documentation also shows this:
val acc = sc.accumulator(0)
data.map(x => acc += x; f(x))
// Here, acc is still 0 because no actions have cause the `map` to be computed.
But if we add data.count() at the end, would this be guaranteed to be correct (have no duplicates) or not? Clearly acc is not used "inside actions only", as map is a transformation. So it should not be guaranteed.
On the other hand, discussion on related Jira tickets talk about "result tasks" rather than "actions". For instance here and here. This seems to indicate that the result would indeed be guaranteed to be correct, since we are using acc immediately before and action and thus should be computed as a single stage.
I'm guessing that this concept of a "result task" has to do with the type of operations involved, being the last one that includes an action, like in this example, which shows how several operations are divided into stages (in magenta, image taken from here):
So hypothetically, a count() action at the end of that chain would be part of the same final stage, and I would be guaranteed that accumulators used on the last map will no include any duplicates?
Clarification around this issue would be great! Thanks.
To answer the question "When are accumulators truly reliable ?"
Answer : When they are present in an Action operation.
As per the documentation in Action Task, even if any restarted tasks are present it will update Accumulator only once.
For accumulator updates performed inside actions only, Spark guarantees that each task’s update to the accumulator will only be applied once, i.e. restarted tasks will not update the value. In transformations, users should be aware of that each task’s update may be applied more than once if tasks or job stages are re-executed.
And Action do allow to run custom code.
For Ex.
val accNotEmpty = sc.accumulator(0)
ip.foreach(x=>{
if(x!=""){
accNotEmpty += 1
}
})
But, Why Map+Action viz. Result Task operations are not reliable for an Accumulator operation?
Task failed due to some exception in code. Spark will try 4 times(default number of tries).If task fail every time it will give an exception.If by chance it succeeds then Spark will continue and just update the accumulator value for successful state and failed states accumulator values are ignored.Verdict : Handled Properly
Stage Failure : If an executor node crashes, no fault of user but an hardware failure - And if the node goes down in shuffle stage.As shuffle output is stored locally, if a node goes down, that shuffle output is gone.So Spark goes back to the stage that generated the shuffle output, looks at which tasks need to be rerun, and executes them on one of the nodes that is still alive.After we regenerate the missing shuffle output, the stage which generated the map output has executed some of it’s tasks multiple times.Spark counts accumulator updates from all of them.Verdict : Not handled in Result Task.Accumulator will give wrong output.
If a task is running slow then, Spark can launch a speculative copy of that task on another node.Verdict : Not handled.Accumulator will give wrong output.
RDD which is cached is huge and can't reside in Memory.So whenever the RDD is used it will re run the Map operation to get the RDD and again accumulator will be updated by it.Verdict : Not handled.Accumulator will give wrong output.
So it may happen same function may run multiple time on same data.So Spark does not provide any guarantee for accumulator getting updated because of the Map operation.
So it is better to use Accumulator in Action operation in Spark.
To know more about Accumulator and its issues refer this Blog Post - By Imran Rashid.
Accumulator updates are sent back to the driver when a task is successfully completed. So your accumulator results are guaranteed to be correct when you are certain that each task will have been executed exactly once and each task did as you expected.
I prefer relying on reduce and aggregate instead of accumulators because it is fairly hard to enumerate all the ways tasks can be executed.
An action starts tasks.
If an action depends on an earlier stage and the results of that stage are not (fully) cached, then tasks from the earlier stage will be started.
Speculative execution starts duplicate tasks when a small number of slow tasks are detected.
That said, there are many simple cases where accumulators can be fully trusted.
val acc = sc.accumulator(0)
val rdd = sc.parallelize(1 to 10, 2)
val accumulating = rdd.map { x => acc += 1; x }
accumulating.count
assert(acc == 10)
Would this be guaranteed to be correct (have no duplicates)?
Yes, if speculative execution is disabled. The map and the count will be a single stage, so like you say, there is no way a task can be successfully executed more than once.
But an accumulator is updated as a side-effect. So you have to be very careful when thinking about how the code will be executed. Consider this instead of accumulating.count:
// Same setup as before.
accumulating.mapPartitions(p => Iterator(p.next)).collect
assert(acc == 2)
This will also create one task for each partition, and each task will be guaranteed to execute exactly once. But the code in map will not get executed on all elements, just the first one in each partition.
The accumulator is like a global variable. If you share a reference to the RDD that can increment the accumulator then other code (other threads) can cause it to increment too.
// Same setup as before.
val x = new X(accumulating) // We don't know what X does.
// It may trigger the calculation
// any number of times.
accumulating.count
assert(acc >= 10)
I think Matei answered this in the referred documentation:
As discussed on https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2524 this is
pretty hard to provide good semantics for in the general case
(accumulator updates inside non-result stages), for the following
reasons:
An RDD may be computed as part of multiple stages. For
example, if you update an accumulator inside a MappedRDD and then
shuffle it, that might be one stage. But if you then call map() again
on the MappedRDD, and shuffle the result of that, you get a second
stage where that map is pipeline. Do you want to count this
accumulator update twice or not?
Entire stages may be resubmitted if
shuffle files are deleted by the periodic cleaner or are lost due to a
node failure, so anything that tracks RDDs would need to do so for
long periods of time (as long as the RDD is referenceable in the user
program), which would be pretty complicated to implement.
So I'm going
to mark this as "won't fix" for now, except for the part for result
stages done in SPARK-3628.