val words = lines.flatMap(_.split(" "))
val pairs = words.map(word => (word, 1))
For the above example, we know there are two transformation functions. Both of them must running at the same process\server, however I want to make the second transformation running on a different server from the first one to achieve scalability, is it possible?
To clear things up: a Spark transformation is not an actual execution. Transformations in Spark are lazy which means nothing gets executed until you call an action (e.g. save, collect). An action is a job in Spark.
So based on the above, you can control jobs but you cannot control transformations. A Spark's job will be distributed on multiple executors by splitting the processed data (RDD) among them. Each executor will apply the job (multiple transformations) on its split and then the results will be collected again. This will significantly reduce network usage.
If you can perform what your asking about, then the intermediate results (which you actually don't care about) should be transformed over the network which in turns will add a great network overhead.
Related
Lets say we have the following Scala program:
val inputRDD = sc.textFile("log.txt")
inputRDD.persist()
val errorsRDD = inputRDD.filter(lambda x: "error" in x)
val warningsRDD = inputRDD.filter(lambda x: "warning" in x)
println("Errors: " + errorsRDD.count() + ", Warnings: " + warningsRDD.count())
We create a simple RDD, persist it, perform two transformations on the RDD and finally have an action which uses the RDDs.
When the print is called, the transformations are executed, each transformation is of course parallel depending on the cluster management.
My main question is: Are the two actions and transformations executed in parallel or sequence? Or does errorsRDD.count() first execute and then warningsRDD.count(), in sequence?
I'm also wondering if there is any point in using persist in this example.
All standard RDD methods are blocking (with exception to AsyncRDDActions) so actions will be evaluated sequentially. It is possible to execute multiple actions concurrently using non-blocking submission (threads, Futures) with correct configuration of in-application scheduler or explicitly limited resources for each action.
Regarding cache it is impossible to answer without knowing the context. Depending on the cluster configuration, storage, and data locality it might be cheaper to load data from disk again, especially when resources are limited, and subsequent actions might trigger cache cleaner.
This will execute errorsRDD.count() first then warningsRDD.count().
The point of using persist here is when the first count is executed, inputRDD will be in memory.
The second count, spark won't need to re-read "whole" content of file from storage again, so execution time of this count would be much faster than the first.
I have data already sorted by key into my Spark Streaming partitions by virtue of Kafka, i.e. keys found on one node are not found on any other nodes.
I would like to use redis and its incrby (increment by) command as a state engine and to reduce the number of requests sent to redis, I would like to partially reduce my data by doing a word count on each worker node by itself. (The key is tag+timestamp to obtain my functionality from word count).
I would like to avoid shuffling and let redis take care of adding data across worker nodes.
Even when I have checked that data is cleanly split among worker nodes, .reduce(_ + _) (Scala syntax) takes a long time (several seconds vs. sub-second for map tasks), as the HashPartitioner seems to shuffle my data to a random node to add it there.
How can I write a simple word count reduce on each partitioner without triggering the shuffling step in Scala with Spark Streaming?
Note DStream objects lack some RDD methods, which are available only through the transform method.
It seems I might be able to use combineByKey. I would like to skip the mergeCombiners() step and instead leave accumulated tuples where they are.
The book "Learning Spark" enigmatically says:
We can disable map-side aggregation in combineByKey() if we know that our data won’t benefit from it. For example, groupByKey() disables map-side aggregation as the aggregation function (appending to a list) does not save any space. If we want to disable map-side combines, we need to specify the partitioner; for now you can just use the partitioner on the source RDD by passing rdd.partitioner.
https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/learning-spark/9781449359034/ch04.html
The book then continues to supply no syntax for how to do this, nor have I had any luck with google so far.
What is worse, as far as I know, the partitioner is not set for DStream RDDs in Spark Streaming, so I don't know how to supply a partitioner to combineByKey that doesn't end up shuffling data.
Also, what does "map-side" actually mean and what consequences does mapSideCombine = false have, exactly?
The scala implementation for combineByKey can be found at
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/PairRDDFunctions.scala
Look for combineByKeyWithClassTag.
If the solution involves a custom partitioner, please include also a code sample for how to apply that partitioner to the incoming DStream.
This can be done using mapPartitions, which takes a function that maps an iterator of the input RDD on one partition to an iterator over the output RDD.
To implement a word count, I map to _._2 to remove the Kafka key and then perform a fast iterator word count using foldLeft, initializing a mutable.hashMap, which then gets converted to an Iterator to form the output RDD.
val myDstream = messages
.mapPartitions( it =>
it.map(_._2)
.foldLeft(new mutable.HashMap[String, Int])(
(count, key) => count += (key -> (count.getOrElse(key, 0) + 1))
).toIterator
)
I have gone through some videos in Youtube regarding Spark architecture.
Even though Lazy evaluation, Resilience of data creation in case of failures, good functional programming concepts are reasons for success of Resilenace Distributed Datasets, one worrying factor is memory overhead due to multiple transformations resulting into memory overheads due data immutability.
If I understand the concept correctly, Every transformations is creating new data sets and hence the memory requirements will gone by those many times. If I use 10 transformations in my code, 10 sets of data sets will be created and my memory consumption will increase by 10 folds.
e.g.
val textFile = sc.textFile("hdfs://...")
val counts = textFile.flatMap(line => line.split(" "))
.map(word => (word, 1))
.reduceByKey(_ + _)
counts.saveAsTextFile("hdfs://...")
Above example has three transformations : flatMap, map and reduceByKey. Does it implies I need 3X memory of data for X size of data?
Is my understanding correct? Is caching RDD is only solution to address this issue?
Once I start caching, it may spill over to disk due to large size and performance would be impacted due to disk IO operations. In that case, performance of Hadoop and Spark are comparable?
EDIT:
From the answer and comments, I have understood lazy initialization and pipeline process. My assumption of 3 X memory where X is initial RDD size is not accurate.
But is it possible to cache 1 X RDD in memory and update it over the pipleline? How does cache () works?
First off, the lazy execution means that functional composition can occur:
scala> val rdd = sc.makeRDD(List("This is a test", "This is another test",
"And yet another test"), 1)
rdd: org.apache.spark.rdd.RDD[String] = ParallelCollectionRDD[70] at makeRDD at <console>:27
scala> val counts = rdd.flatMap(line => {println(line);line.split(" ")}).
| map(word => {println(word);(word,1)}).
| reduceByKey((x,y) => {println(s"$x+$y");x+y}).
| collect
This is a test
This
is
a
test
This is another test
This
1+1
is
1+1
another
test
1+1
And yet another test
And
yet
another
1+1
test
2+1
counts: Array[(String, Int)] = Array((And,1), (is,2), (another,2), (a,1), (This,2), (yet,1), (test,3))
First note that I force the parallelism down to 1 so that we can see how this looks on a single worker. Then I add a println to each of the transformations so that we can see how the workflow moves. You see that it processes the line, then it processes the output of that line, followed by the reduction. So, there are not separate states stored for each transformation as you suggested. Instead, each piece of data is looped through the entire transformation up until a shuffle is needed, as can be seen by the DAG visualization from the UI:
That is the win from the laziness. As to Spark v Hadoop, there is already a lot out there (just google it), but the gist is that Spark tends to utilize network bandwidth out of the box, giving it a boost right there. Then, there a number of performance improvements gained by laziness, especially if a schema is known and you can utilize the DataFrames API.
So, overall, Spark beats MR hands down in just about every regard.
The memory requirements of Spark not 10 times if you have 10 transformations in your Spark job. When you specify the steps of transformations in a job Spark builds a DAG which will allow it to execute all the steps in the jobs. After that it breaks the job down into stages. A stage is a sequence of transformations which Spark can execute on dataset without shuffling.
When an action is triggered on the RDD, Spark evaluates the DAG. It just applies all the transformations in a stage together until it hits the end of the stage, so it is unlikely for the memory pressure to be 10 time unless each transformation leads to a shuffle (in which case it is probably a badly written job).
I would recommend watching this talk and going through the slides.
I came across the feature in Spark where it allows you to schedule different tasks within a spark context.
I want to implement this feature in a program where I map my input RDD(from a text source) into a key value RDD [K,V] subsequently make a composite key valueRDD [(K1,K2),V] and a filtered RDD containing some specific values.
Further pipeline involves calling some statistical methods from MLlib on both the RDDs and a join operation followed by externalizing the result to disk.
I am trying to understand how will spark's internal fair scheduler handle these operations. I tried reading the job scheduling documentation but got more confused with the concept of pools, users and tasks.
What exactly are the pools, are they certain 'tasks' which can be grouped together or are they linux users pooled into a group
What are users in this context. Do they refer to threads? or is it something like SQL context queries ?
I guess it relates to how are tasks scheduled within a spark context. But reading the documentation makes it seem like we are dealing with multiple applications with different clients and user groups.
Can someone please clarify this?
All the pipelined procedure you described in Paragraph 2:
map -> map -> map -> filter
will be handled in a single stage, just like a map() in MapReduce if it is familiar to you. It's because there isn't a need for repartition or shuffle your data for your make no requirements on the correlation between records, spark would just chain as much transformation as possible into a same stage before create a new one, because it would be much lightweight. More informations on stage separation could be find in its paper: Resilient Distributed Datasets Section 5.1 Job Scheduling.
When the stage get executed, it would be one task set (same tasks running in different thread), and get scheduled simultaneously in spark's perspective.
And Fair scheduler is about to schedule unrelated task sets and not suitable here.
I have a small Scala program that runs fine on a single-node. However, I am scaling it out so it runs on multiple nodes. This is my first such attempt. I am just trying to understand how the RDDs work in Spark so this question is based around theory and may not be 100% correct.
Let's say I create an RDD:
val rdd = sc.textFile(file)
Now once I've done that, does that mean that the file at file is now partitioned across the nodes (assuming all nodes have access to the file path)?
Secondly, I want to count the number of objects in the RDD (simple enough), however, I need to use that number in a calculation which needs to be applied to objects in the RDD - a pseudocode example:
rdd.map(x => x / rdd.size)
Let's say there are 100 objects in rdd, and say there are 10 nodes, thus a count of 10 objects per node (assuming this is how the RDD concept works), now when I call the method is each node going to perform the calculation with rdd.size as 10 or 100? Because, overall, the RDD is size 100 but locally on each node it is only 10. Am I required to make a broadcast variable prior to doing the calculation? This question is linked to the question below.
Finally, if I make a transformation to the RDD, e.g. rdd.map(_.split("-")), and then I wanted the new size of the RDD, do I need to perform an action on the RDD, such as count(), so all the information is sent back to the driver node?
val rdd = sc.textFile(file)
Does that mean that the file is now partitioned across the nodes?
The file remains wherever it was. The elements of the resulting RDD[String] are the lines of the file. The RDD is partitioned to match the natural partitioning of the underlying file system. The number of partitions does not depend on the number of nodes you have.
It is important to understand that when this line is executed it does not read the file(s). The RDD is a lazy object and will only do something when it must. This is great because it avoids unnecessary memory usage.
For example, if you write val errors = rdd.filter(line => line.startsWith("error")), still nothing happens. If you then write val errorCount = errors.count now your sequence of operations will need to be executed because the result of count is an integer. What each worker core (executor thread) will do in parallel then, is read a file (or piece of file), iterate through its lines, and count the lines starting with "error". Buffering and GC aside, only a single line per core will be in memory at a time. This makes it possible to work with very large data without using a lot of memory.
I want to count the number of objects in the RDD, however, I need to use that number in a calculation which needs to be applied to objects in the RDD - a pseudocode example:
rdd.map(x => x / rdd.size)
There is no rdd.size method. There is rdd.count, which counts the number of elements in the RDD. rdd.map(x => x / rdd.count) will not work. The code will try to send the rdd variable to all workers and will fail with a NotSerializableException. What you can do is:
val count = rdd.count
val normalized = rdd.map(x => x / count)
This works, because count is an Int and can be serialized.
If I make a transformation to the RDD, e.g. rdd.map(_.split("-")), and then I wanted the new size of the RDD, do I need to perform an action on the RDD, such as count(), so all the information is sent back to the driver node?
map does not change the number of elements. I don't know what you mean by "size". But yes, you need to perform an action, such as count to get anything out of the RDD. You see, no work at all is performed until you perform an action. (When you perform count, only the per-partition count will be sent back to the driver, of course, not "all the information".)
Usually, the file (or parts of the file, if it's too big) is replicated to N nodes in the cluster (by default N=3 on HDFS). It's not an intention to split every file between all available nodes.
However, for you (i.e. the client) working with file using Spark should be transparent - you should not see any difference in rdd.size, no matter on how many nodes it's split and/or replicated. There are methods (at least, in Hadoop) to find out on which nodes (parts of the) file can be located at the moment. However, in simple cases you most probably won't need to use this functionality.
UPDATE: an article describing RDD internals: https://cs.stanford.edu/~matei/papers/2012/nsdi_spark.pdf