Can you check the JM log file how many slots are available?

Slots are configured per TM. If you configure 9 slots and 3 TMs you end up
with 27 slots, 9 on each TM.
On Mar 12, 2015 7:55 PM, "Emmanuel" <ele...@msn.com> wrote:

> It appears actually that the slots used are all on the same host.
> My guess is because I am using the default partitioning method (forward,
> which defaults to the same host)
>
> However I now tried .shuffle() and .distribute() without any luck:
>
> I have a
>
> DataStream<String> text = env.socketTextStream(inHostName, inPort);
>
> this is the one socket input stream.
>
> Adding text.distribute().map(...)
>
> does not seem to distribute the *.map()* process on the other hosts.
>
> Is this the correct way to use *.distribute()* on a stream input?
>
> Thanks
>
> Emmanuel
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: ele...@msn.com
> To: user@flink.apache.org
> Subject: Flink logs only written to one host
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:30:28 +0000
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm using a 3 nodes (3VMs) cluster, 3CPUs each, parallelism of 9,
> I usually only see taskmanager.out logs generated only on one of the 3
> nodes when I use the System.out.println() method, to print debug info in my
> main processing function.
>
> Is this expected? Or am I just doing something wrong?
> I stream from a socket with socketTextStream; I understand that this job
> runs on a single process, and I see that in the UI (using one slot only),
> but the computation task runs on 9 slots. That task includes the 
> System.out.println()
> statement, yet it only shows on one host's .out log folder.
> The host is not always the same, so I have to tail all logs on all hosts,
> but I'm surprised of this behavior.
> Am I just missing something?
> Are 'print' statement to stdout aggregated on one host somehow? If so how
> is this controlled? Why would that host change?
>
> I would love to understand what is going on, and if maybe somehow the 9
> slots may be running on a single host which would defeat the purpose.
>
> Thanks for the insight
>
> Emmanuel
>

Reply via email to