1. MC 2 : Map Concurrency Characterization for MapReduce on the Cloud Mohammad Hammoud and Majd Sakr 1

2. Hadoop MapReduce MapReduce is now a pervasive data processing framework on the cloud Hadoop is an open source implementation of MapReduce Hadoop MapReduce incorporates two phases, Map and Reduce phases, which encompass multiple Map and Reduce tasks Map Task Reduce Task Partition To HDFS Dataset HDFS HDFS BLK Map Phase Shuffle Stage Merge Stage Reduce Stage Reduce Phase 2 Partition Split 0 Split 1 Split 2 Split 3 Partition

3. How to Effectively Configure Hadoop? Hadoop has more than 190 configuration parameters  10-20 parameters can have significant impact on job performance A main challenge that faces Hadoop users on the cloud:  Running MapReduce applications in the most economical way  While still achieving good performance The burden falls on Hadoop users to effectively configure Hadoop Hadoop’s default configuration is not necessarily optimal  Several X speedup/slowdown between tuned and default Hadoop 3

4. Map Tasks and Map Concurrency Among the influential configuration parameters in Hadoop are:  Number of Map Tasks  Determined by the number of HDFS blocks  Number of Map Slots  Allocated to run Map Tasks Core Switch TaskTracker1 Request a Map Task Schedule a Map Task at an Empty Map Slot on TaskTracker1 Rack Switch 1 Rack Switch 2 TaskTracker2 TaskTracker3TaskTracker4 TaskTracker5 JobTracker MT1 MT2 MT3 MT2 MT3 Map Concurrency = Map Tasks/Map Slots 4

5. Impact of Map Concurrency  Observations:  Map concurrency has a strong impact on Hadoop performance  Hadoop’s default Map concurrency settings are not optimal  For effective execution, Hadoop might require different Map concurrencies for different applications Sobel K-MeansSort WordCount-CD Default Hadoop Tuned Hadoop 5

6. Our Work We propose MC 2 :  A simple, fast and static “utility” program  Which predicts the best Map Concurrency for any given MapReduce application MC 2 is based on a mathematical model which exploits two main MapReduce internal characteristics:  Map Setup Time (or the total overhead for setting up all map tasks in a job)  Early Shuffle (or the process of shuffling intermediate data while the Map phase is still running) 6

7. Talk Roadmap Characterizing Map Concurrency  Map Concurrency ≤ 1  Map Concurrency > 1 A Mathematical Model for Predicting Runtimes of MR jobs The MC 2 Predictor Quantitative Evaluation Concluding Remarks 7

8. Talk Roadmap Characterizing Map Concurrency  Map Concurrency ≤ 1  Map Concurrency > 1 A Mathematical Model for Predicting Runtimes of MR jobs The MC 2 Predictor Quantitative Evaluation Concluding Remarks 8

9. Concurrency with a Single Map Wave The maximum number of concurrent Map tasks is bound by the total number of Map slots in a Hadoop cluster  We refer to the maximum concurrent Map tasks as Map Wave MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MT1 MT2 MS5 MS6 MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MT3 MT4 MS5 MS6 MT1 MT2 Ends at time t + MST Ends at time t/2 + MST MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MS5 MS6 Ends at time t/2 + 2MST MST = Map Setup Time Fill as much Map slots as possible within a Map wave  More Parallelism & Better Utilization 9 t MST t/2 2MST t/4 + t/4 = t/2

10. Concurrency with Multiple Map Waves What are the tradeoffs as the number of Map waves is varied? MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MT3 MT4 RS1 RS2 RT1 RT2 MT2 MT1 Shuffle & Merge Reduce Shuffle & Merge Reduce One Map Wave MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 RS1 RS2 Shuffle & Merge Reduce Shuffle & Merge Reduce RT1 RT2 RS1 RS2 Shuffle & Merge Reduce Shuffle & Merge Reduce MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 RT1 RT2 Two Map Waves Four Map Waves As the number of Map waves is increased: (-) Map Setup Time increases-- Cost (+) Data Shuffling starts earlier (i.e., earlier Early Shuffle)-- Opportunity [- No Phase Overlap] [Map Setup Time = MST] [+ With Phase Overlap] [- Map Setup Time = 2MST] [+ With More Phase Overlap] [- Map Setup Time = 4MST] [Map Time = t] t 2MST t = t/2 + t/2 4MSTt = t/4 + t/4 + t/4 + t/4 [Map Time = t] MST 10

11. When to Trigger Early Shuffle? Early Shuffle can be activated earlier by increasing the number of Map Waves The preference of when exactly the early shuffle process must be activated varies across applications The more the amount of data an application shuffles, the earlier the early shuffle process must be triggered  With a larger shuffle data, a larger number of map waves is preferred We devise a mathematical model that allows locating the best number of map waves for any given MR application 11

12. Talk Roadmap Characterizing Map Concurrency  Map Concurrency ≤ 1  Map Concurrency > 1 A Mathematical Model for Predicting Runtimes of MR jobs The MC 2 Predictor Quantitative Evaluation Concluding Remarks 12

13. A Mathematical Model (1) Assumptions:  Map tasks start and finish at similar times  Time impact of speculative execution is masked  Ignore slow Mappers and Reducers  Map time is typically longer than Map Setup Time 13 Shuffle & Merge Reduce RS1 RS2 Total Map Setup Time (MST) MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 Exposed Shuffle Time (EST) Hidden Shuffle Time (HST) Runtime Reduce Time

14. A Mathematical Model (2) 14 Shuffle & Merge Reduce RS1 RS2 Total Map Setup Time (MST) MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 Exposed Shuffle Time (EST) Hidden Shuffle Time (HST) Runtime Reduce Time (1) (2) (3) (4)

15. Talk Roadmap Characterizing Map Concurrency  Map Concurrency ≤ 1  Map Concurrency > 1 A Mathematical Model for Predicting Runtimes of MR jobs The MC 2 Predictor Quantitative Evaluation Concluding Remarks 15

16. MC 2 : Map Concurrency Characterization Our mathematical model can be utilized to predict the best number of map waves for any given MR application – Fix all the model’s factors except the “Number of Map Waves” – Measure Runtime for a range of map wave numbers – Select the minimum Runtime 16 Single Map Wave Time MST Sweet Spot  Total MST  HST  EST  Runtime Shuffle Data Shuffle Rate Reduce Time Initial Map Slots Number Compute:

17. Talk Roadmap Characterizing Map Concurrency  Map Concurrency ≤ 1  Map Concurrency > 1 A Mathematical Model for Predicting Runtimes of MR jobs The MC 2 Predictor Quantitative Evaluation Concluding Remarks 17

18. Quantitative Methodology We evaluate MC 2 on:  A private cloud with 14 machines  Amazon EC2 with 20 large instances We use Apache Hadoop 0.20.2 We use various benchmarks with different dataset sizes 18 BenchmarkDataset Size (Private & Public) Sobel4.3GB and 8.7GB WordCount-CE28GB and 20GB K-Means5.5GB and 11.1GB Sort28GB and 20GB WordCount-CD14GB and 20GB

19. Results: WordCount-CE 19

20. Results: K-Means 20

21. Results: Sort 21

22. Results: WordCount-CD 22

23. Results: Sobel 23

24. MC 2 Results: Summary BenchmarkPrivate CloudAmazon EC2 WordCount-CE2.1X1.2X K-Means1.34X1.13X Sort1.07X1.1X WordCount-CD1.1X2.2X Sobel1.43X1.04X Runtime speedups provided by MC 2 versus default Hadoop 24 MC 2 correctly predicts the best numbers of map waves for WordCount-CE, K-Means, Sort, WordCount-CD and Sobel on our private cloud and on Amazon EC2 Even if a miss-prediction occurs, it is typically the case that the sweet spot is very close to the observed minimum

25. Talk Roadmap Characterizing Map Concurrency  Map Concurrency ≤ 1  Map Concurrency > 1 A Mathematical Model for Predicting Runtimes of MR jobs The MC 2 Predictor Quantitative Evaluation Concluding Remarks 25

26. Concluding Remarks We observed a strong dependency between map concurrency and MapReduce performance We realized that a good map concurrency configuration can be determined by simply leveraging two main MapReduce characteristics, data shuffling and map setup time (MST) We developed a mathematical model that exploits data shuffling and MST, and built MC 2 which uses the model to predict the best map concurrency for any given MR application MC 2 works successfully on a private cloud and on Amazon EC2 26

27. Thank You! Questions? 27