skip to main content
10.1145/2150976.2150984acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesasplosConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Tarazu: optimizing MapReduce on heterogeneous clusters

Published:03 March 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Data center-scale clusters are evolving towards heterogeneous hardware for power, cost, differentiated price-performance, and other reasons. MapReduce is a well-known programming model to process large amount of data on data center-scale clusters. Most MapReduce implementations have been designed and optimized for homogeneous clusters. Unfortunately, these implementations perform poorly on heterogeneous clusters (e.g., on a 90-node cluster that contains 10 Xeon-based servers and 80 Atom-based servers, Hadoop performs worse than on 10-node Xeon-only or 80-node Atom-only homogeneous sub-clusters for many of our benchmarks). This poor performance remains despite previously proposed optimizations related to management of straggler tasks. In this paper, we address MapReduce's poor performance on heterogeneous clusters. Our first contribution is that the poor performance is due to two key factors: (1) the non-intuitive effect that MapReduce's built-in load balancing results in excessive and bursty network communication during the Map phase, and (2) the intuitive effect that the heterogeneity amplifies load imbalance in the Reduce computation. Our second contribution is Tarazu, a suite of optimizations to improve MapReduce performance on heterogeneous clusters. Tarazu consists of (1) Communication-Aware Load Balancing of Map computation (CALB) across the nodes, (2) Communication-Aware Scheduling of Map computation (CAS) to avoid bursty network traffic and (3) Predictive Load Balancing of Reduce computation (PLB) across the nodes. Using the above 90-node cluster, we show that Tarazu significantly improves performance over a baseline of Hadoop with straightforward tuning for hardware heterogeneity.

References

  1. R. Agrawal and R. Srikant. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. Proceedings of 20th Intl. Conference on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Amazon EC2. http://aws.amazon.com/ec2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. G. Ananthanarayanan, S. Kandula, A. Greenberg, I. Stoica, Y. Lu, B. Saha, and E. Harris. Reining in the outliers in Map-Reduce clusters using Mantri. In Proceedings of the Usenix Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. G. Andersen, J. Franklin, M. Kaminsky, A. Phanishayee, L. Tan, and V. Vasudevan. FAWN: A Fast Array of Wimpy Nodes. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Apache Mahout: Scalable machine learning and data mining. http://mahout.apache.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. C. Arpaci-Dusseau, R. H. Arpaci-Dusseau, D. E. Culler, J. M. Hellerstein, and D. A. Patterson. High-performance sorting on networks of workstations. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 243--254, Tucson,Arizona, May 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Calxeda, Inc. http://www.calxeda.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Q. Chen, D. Zhang, M. Guo, Q. Deng, and S. Guo. SAMR: A Self-adaptive MapReduce Scheduling Algorithm in Heterogeneous Environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B.-G. Chun, G. Iannaccone, G. Iannaccone, R. Katz, G. Lee, and L. Niccolini. An Energy Case for Hybrid Datacenters. In SOSP Workshop on Power Aware Computing and Systems (HotPower), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Dean and S. Ghemawat. MapReduce: Simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun. ACM, pages 107--113, Jan. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Facebook Hive. http://hadoop.apache.org/hive.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Ghodsi, M. Zaharia, B. Hindman, A. Konwinski, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair allocation of multiple resource types. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX conference on Networked systems design and implementation(NSDI), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Greenberg, J. R. Hamilton, N. Jain, S. Kandula, C. Kim, P. Lahiri, D. A. Maltz, P. Patel, and S. Sengupta. VL2: A scalable and flexible data center network. In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM conference on Data Communication, pages 51--62, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hadoop. http://lucene.apache.org/hadoop/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Hamilton. When Very Low-Power, Low-Cost Servers Don't Make Sense. In http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/05/18/WhenVeryLowPowerLowCostServersDontMakeSense.aspx, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. B. He, W. Fang, Q. Luo, N. K. Govindaraju, and T. Wang. Mars: A MapReduce framework on graphics processors. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, pages 260--269, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. HP Labs. Project Moonshot. In http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_kits/2011/MoonshotInfrastructure/index.html, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Isard, M. Budiu, Y. Yu, A. Birrell, and D. Fetterly. Dryad: Distributed data-parallel programs from sequential building blocks. In EuroSys '07: Proceedings of the 2nd SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Isard, V. Prabhakaran, J. Currey, U. Wieder, K. Talwar, and A. Goldberg. Quincy: Fair scheduling for distributed computing clusters. In Proceedings of the 22nd symposium on Operating systems principles, SOSP, pages 261--276, USA, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. V. Janapa Reddi, B. C. Lee, T. Chilimbi, and K. Vaid. Web search using mobile cores: Quantifying and mitigating the price of efficiency. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J.Hartigan. Clustering Algorithms. Wiley, 1975. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. A. Krioukov, P. Mohan, S. Alspaugh, L. Keys, D. E. Culler, and R. H. Katz. NapSAC: Design and implementation of a power-proportional web cluster. ACM Computer Communication Review, 41(1), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. W. Lang, J. M. Patel, and S. Shankar. Wimpy node clusters: What about non-wimpy workloads? In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Data Management on New Hardware (DaMoN), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. K. Lim, P. Ranganathan, J. Chang, C. Patel, T. Mudge, and S. Reinhardt. Understanding and Designing New Server Architectures for Emerging Warehouse-Computing Environments. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pages 315--326, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. D. Linderman, J. D. Collins, H. Wang, and T. H. Meng. Merge: A programming model for heterogeneous multi-core systems. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Netflix movies data. http://www.netflixprize.com/download.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. Olston, B. Reed, U. Srivastava, R. Kumar, and A. Tomkins. Pig latin: a not-so-foreign language for data processing. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Management Of Data, SIGMOD, pages 1099--1110, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. M. Rafique, N. Ravi, S. Cadambi, S. T. Chakradhar, and A. R. Butt. Power Management for Heterogeneous Clusters: An Experimental Study. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Green Computing, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. C. Ranger, R. Raghuraman, A. Penmetsa, G. Bradski, and C. Kozyrakis. Evaluating MapReduce for Multi-core and Multiprocessor Systems. In 13th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, HPCA, pages 13--24, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. SeaMicro, Inc. http://www.seamicro.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. A. Vahdat, M. Al-Fares, N. Farrington, R. N. Mysore, G. Porter, and S. Radhakrishnan. Scale-Out Networking in the Data Center. IEEE Micro, 30:29--41, July 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. D. Weld. Lecture notes on MapReduce (based on Jeff Dean's slides). http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/cse494/notes/s07-map-reduce.ppt, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. X-RIME: Hadoop based large scale social network analysis. http://xrime.sourceforge.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. H.-C. Yang, A. Dasdan, R.-L. Hsiao, and D. S. Parker. Map-reduce-merge: Simplified relational data processing on large clusters. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD international conference on Management Of Data, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Y. Yu, M. Isard, D. Fetterly, M. Budiu, U. Erlingsson, P. K. Gunda, and J. Currey. DryadLINQ: A System for General-Purpose Distributed Data-Parallel Computing Using a High-Level Language. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. M. Zaharia, D. Borthakur, J. Sen Sarma, K. Elmeleegy, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. Delay Scheduling: A simple technique for achieving locality and fairness in cluster scheduling. In Proceedings of the 5th European conference on Computer systems, EuroSys '10, pages 265--278, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. M. Zaharia, A. Konwinski, A. Joseph, R. Katz, and I. Stoica. Improving MapReduce performance in heterogeneous environments. In Proceedings of the Usenix Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Hadoop rebalancer. http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/r0.17.2/hdfs_user_guide.html#Rebalancer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Tarazu: optimizing MapReduce on heterogeneous clusters

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            ASPLOS XVII: Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems
            March 2012
            476 pages
            ISBN:9781450307598
            DOI:10.1145/2150976
            • cover image ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News
              ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News  Volume 40, Issue 1
              ASPLOS '12
              March 2012
              453 pages
              ISSN:0163-5964
              DOI:10.1145/2189750
              Issue’s Table of Contents
            • cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
              ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 47, Issue 4
              ASPLOS '12
              April 2012
              453 pages
              ISSN:0362-1340
              EISSN:1558-1160
              DOI:10.1145/2248487
              Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2012 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 3 March 2012

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate535of2,713submissions,20%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader