Could it be that the TaskManagers are configured with not-enough memory?

On Thu, 5 May 2016 at 13:35 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote:

> The default value of taskmanager.network.numberOfBuffers is 2048. I would
> recommend to use a multiple of that value, for example 16384 (given that
> you have enough memory per TaskManager)
>
> I recommend checking out these slides I created a while ago. They explain
> what the network buffers are needed for:
> http://www.slideshare.net/robertmetzger1/apache-flink-hands-on#37
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Punit Naik <naik.puni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes I followed it and changed it to 298 but again it said the same thing.
>> The only change was that it now said "required 298, but only 200 available".
>>
>> Why did it say that?
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think you've chosen a good initial value for the parallelism.
>>> The higher the parallelism, the more network buffers are needed. I would
>>> follow the recommendation from the exception and increase the number of
>>> network buffers.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Punit Naik <naik.puni...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> I was running a program with 'parallelism.default' of 384 as I read in
>>>> the documentation on Flink's official page that 'parallelism.default' is
>>>> "the total number of CPUs in the cluster". I have four machines with 96
>>>> cores on each of them. So 96*4=384. But the program thew an error saying:
>>>>
>>>> Caused by: java.io.IOException: Insufficient number of network buffers:
>>>> required 384, but only 298 available. The total number of network buffers
>>>> is currently set to 2048. You can increase this number by setting the
>>>> configuration key 'taskmanager.network.numberOfBuffers'.
>>>>
>>>> What does this mean? And how to choose a proper value for parallelism?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thank You
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Punit Naik
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thank You
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Punit Naik
>>
>

Reply via email to