I would like to say that I have also had this issue.

In two situations, one using Accumulo to store information and also when 
running multiple streaming jobs within the same streaming context (e.g. 
multiple save to hdfs). In my case the situation worsens when one of the jobs, 
which has a long slideduration executes. After this, all other jobs take longer 
to execute. The situation continues until the batches are too delayed and the 
system is unstable.


From: Gerard Maas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 07 October 2015 11:19
To: Tathagata Das
Cc: Cody Koeninger; Adrian Tanase; spark users
Subject: Re: Weird performance pattern of Spark Streaming (1.4.1) + direct Kafka


*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external 
partner or the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments 
or reply.
For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you 
receive, click 
here<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.
If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this 
process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.
Thanks for the feedback.

Cassandra does not seem to be the issue. The time for writing to Cassandra is 
in the same order of magnitude (see below)

The code structure is roughly as follows:

dstream.filter(pred).foreachRDD{rdd =>
  val sparkT0 = currentTimeMs
  val metrics = rdd.mapPartitions{partition =>
     val partitionT0 = currentTimeMs
      partition.foreach{ transform andThen storeInCassandra _}
     val partitionT1 = currentTimeMs
     Seq(Metric( "local time", executor, partitionT1 - partitionT0, 
records)).iterator
  }
  //materialize the rdd
  val allMetrics = metrics.collect()
  val sparkT1 = currentTimeMs
  val totalizedMetrics = // group by and reduce with sum
  val sparkT2 = currentTimeMs
  totalizedMetrics.foreach{ metric => gmetric.report(metric)}
}

Relating this code with the time table presented before (time in ms):


How measured?

Slow Task

Fast Task

executor local

totalizedMetrics

347.6

281.53

spark computation

sparkT1 - sparkT0

6930

263

metric collection

sparkT2 - sparkT1

70

138

wall clock process

sparkT2 - sparkT0

7000

401

total records processed

totalizedMetrics

4297

5002


What we observe is that the largest difference comes from the materialization 
of the RDD. This pattern repeats cyclically one on, one off.

Any ideas where to further look?

kr, Gerard.


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Tathagata Das 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Good point!

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Cody Koeninger 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I agree getting cassandra out of the picture is a good first step.

But if you just do foreachRDD { _.count } recent versions of direct stream 
shouldn't do any work at all on the executor (since the number of messages in 
the rdd is known already)

do a foreachPartition and println or count the iterator manually.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Tathagata Das 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Are sure that this is not related to Cassandra inserts? Could you just do 
foreachRDD { _.count } instead  to keep Cassandra out of the picture and then 
test this agian.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Adrian Tanase 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Also check if the Kafka cluster is still balanced. Maybe one of the brokers 
manages too many partitions, all the work will stay on that executor unless you 
repartition right after kakfka (and I'm not saying you should).

Sent from my iPhone

On 06 Oct 2015, at 22:17, Cody Koeninger 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm not clear on what you're measuring.  Can you post relevant code snippets 
including the measurement code?

As far as kafka metrics, nothing currently.  There is an info-level log message 
every time a kafka rdd iterator is instantiated,


    log.info<http://log.info>(s"Computing topic ${part.topic}, partition 
${part.partition} " +

      s"offsets ${part.fromOffset} -> ${part.untilOffset}")



If you log once you're done with an iterator you should be able to see the 
delta.

The other thing to try is reduce the number of parts involved in the job to 
isolate it ... first thing I'd do there is take cassandra out of the equation.



On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Gerard Maas 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Cody,

The job is doing ETL from Kafka records to Cassandra. After a single filtering 
stage on Spark, the 'TL' part is done using the 
dstream.foreachRDD{rdd.foreachPartition{...TL ...}} pattern.

We have metrics on the executor work which we collect and add together, 
indicated here by 'local computation'.  As you can see, we also measure how 
much it cost us to measure :-)
See how 'local work'  times are comparable.  What's not visible is the task 
scheduling and consuming the data from Kafka which becomes part of the 'spark 
computation' part.

The pattern we see is 1 fast, 1 slow, 1 fast,... zig...zag...

Are there metrics available somehow on the Kafka reading time?


Slow Task

Fast Task

local computation

347.6

281.53

spark computation

6930

263

metric collection

70

138

wall clock process

7000

401

total records processed

4297

5002


(time in ms)

kr, Gerard.


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Cody Koeninger 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Can you say anything more about what the job is doing?

First thing I'd do is try to get some metrics on the time taken by your code on 
the executors (e.g. when processing the iterator) to see if it's consistent 
between the two situations.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Gerard Maas 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,

We recently migrated our streaming jobs to the direct kafka receiver. Our 
initial migration went quite fine but now we are seeing a weird zig-zag 
performance pattern we cannot explain.
In alternating fashion, one task takes about 1 second to finish and the next 
takes 7sec for a stable streaming rate.

Here are comparable metrics for two successive tasks:
Slow:

[cid:[email protected]]
​

Executor ID

Address

Task Time

Total Tasks

Failed Tasks

Succeeded Tasks

20151006-044141-2408867082-5050-21047-S0

dnode-3.hdfs.private:36863

22 s

3

0

3

20151006-044141-2408867082-5050-21047-S1

dnode-0.hdfs.private:43812

40 s

11

0

11

20151006-044141-2408867082-5050-21047-S4

dnode-5.hdfs.private:59945

49 s

10

0

10

Fast:
[cid:[email protected]]
​

Executor ID

Address

Task Time

Total Tasks

Failed Tasks

Succeeded Tasks

20151006-044141-2408867082-5050-21047-S0

dnode-3.hdfs.private:36863

0.6 s

4

0

4

20151006-044141-2408867082-5050-21047-S1

dnode-0.hdfs.private:43812

1 s

9

0

9

20151006-044141-2408867082-5050-21047-S4

dnode-5.hdfs.private:59945

1 s

11

0

11

We have some custom metrics that measure wall-clock time of execution of 
certain blocks of the job, like the time it takes to do the local computations 
(RDD.foreachPartition closure) vs total time.
The difference between the slow and fast executing task is on the 'spark 
computation time' which is wall-clock for the task scheduling 
(DStream.foreachRDD closure)

e.g.
Slow task:

local computation time: 347.60968499999996, spark computation time: 6930, 
metric collection: 70, total process: 7000, total_records: 4297

Fast task:
local computation time: 281.539042, spark computation time: 263, metric 
collection: 138, total process: 401, total_records: 5002

We are currently running Spark 1.4.1. The load and the work to be done is 
stable -this is on a dev env with that stuff under control.

Any ideas what this behavior could be?

thanks in advance,  Gerard.













********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

Reply via email to