SOS: Optimizing Shuffle I/O with Brian Cho and Ergin Seyfe
•
4 gefällt mir•1,558 views
The document summarizes the SOS technique for optimizing shuffle I/O in distributed computing frameworks. SOS merges small intermediate data files from map tasks into larger files to reduce the number and fragmentation of shuffle fetch requests. When deployed at Facebook scale, SOS reduced shuffle I/O by 7.5x and disk service time by 2x, while increasing average I/O size by 2.5x. These I/O optimizations translated to an overall 10% reduction in reserved CPU time for jobs.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie SOS: Optimizing Shuffle I/O with Brian Cho and Ergin Seyfe
Ähnlich wie SOS: Optimizing Shuffle I/O with Brian Cho and Ergin Seyfe (20)
Mehr von Databricks
Mehr von Databricks (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
SOS: Optimizing Shuffle I/O with Brian Cho and Ergin Seyfe
- 2. SOS: Optimizing Shuffle I/O Brian Cho and Ergin Seyfe, Facebook Haoyu Zhang, Princeton University
- 3. 1. Shuffle I/O at large scale
- 4. Large-scale shuffle Stage 1 Stage 2 • Shuffle: all-to-all communication between stages • >10x larger than available memory, strong fault tolerance requirements → on-disk shuffle files
- 5. Shuffle I/O grows quadratically with data 0 5000 10000 1umber RI TasNs 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 ShuIIOeTime(sec) ShuIIOe Time 0 40 80 120 5eTuestCRunt/106 I/2 5eTuest 0 5000 10000 1umber of TasNs 0 500 1000 1500 Size(KB) SKuffle )etFK Size • M * R (number of mappers * number of reducers) shuffle fetches • Large amount of fragmented I/O requests • Adversarial workload for hard drives!
- 6. Strawman: tune number of tasks in a job • Tasks spill intermediate data to disk if data splits exceed memory capacity • Larger task execution reduces shuffle I/O, but increases spill I/O
- 7. Strawman: tune number of tasks in a job • Need to retune when input data volume changes for each individual job • Small tasks run into the quadratic I/O problem • Bulky tasks can be detrimental [Dolly NSDI 13] [SparkPerf NSDI 15] [Monotask SOSP 17] • straggler problems, imbalanced workload, garbage collection overhead 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 2000 4000 8000 10000 1umber of 0aS 7asNs 0 1000 2000 3000 7ime(sec) 6huffle 6Sill 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 2000 4000 8000 10000 1umber of 0aS 7asNs 0 1000 2000 3000 7ime(sec) 6huffle 6Sill 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 2000 4000 8000 10000 1umber of 0aS 7asNs 0 1000 2000 3000 7ime(sec) 6huffle 6Sill
- 8. Small Tasks Bulky Tasks Large Amount of Fragmented Shuffle I/O Fewer, Sequential Shuffle I/O
- 9. 2. SOS: optimizing shuffle I/O
- 10. a.k.a. Riffle, presented at Eurosys 2018 Deployed at Facebook scale SOS: optimizing shuffle I/O
- 11. SOS: optimizing shuffle I/O • Merge map task outputs into larger shuffle files 1. Combines small shuffle files into larger ones 2. Keeps partitioned file layout • Reducers fetch fewer, large blocks instead of many, small blocks • Number of requests: (M * R) / (merge factor) Optimized Shuffle Service merge request map map map reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce map map map merge request Application Driver Merge Scheduler Worker-Side Merger
- 12. SOS: optimizing shuffle I/O • SOS shuffle service: a long running instance on each physical node • SOS scheduler: keeps track of shuffle files and issues merge requests Worker NodeWorker NodeTaskTaskTasks Worker Machine Task Task Task Task File System ExecutorExecutor SOS Shuffle Service Driver Job / Task Scheduler SOS Merge Scheduler assign report task statuses report merge statuses send merge requests
- 13. Results on synthetic workload (unoptimized) 1R 0erge 5 10 20 40 1-Way 0erge 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time(sec) 0aS SWage 5educe SWage •SOS reduces number of fetch requests by 10x •Reduce stage -393s, map stage +169s → job completes 35% faster 1R 0erge 5 10 20 40 1-Way 0erge 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 6ize(KB) 5ead BlRcN 6ize 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 5equesWCRunW 1umber Rf 5eads
- 14. Best-effort merge: mixing merged and unmerged files 1R 0erge 5 10 20 40 1-Way 0erge 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 6ize(KB) 5ead BlRcN 6ize 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 5equesWCRunW 1umber Rf 5eads 1R 0erge 5 10 20 40 1-Way 0erge 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 6ize(KB) 5ead BlRcN 6ize 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 5equesWCRunW 1umber Rf 5eads 1R 0erge 5 10 20 40 1-Way 0erge 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time(sec) 0aS SWage 5educe SWage • Reduce stage -393s, map stage +52s → job completes 53% faster • SOS finishes job with only ~50% of cluster resources! 1R 0erge 5 10 20 40 1-Way 0erge 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time(sec) 0aS SWage 5educe SWage Best-effort merge (95%)
- 15. Additional details • Merge operation fault-tolerance • Handled by falling back to the unmerged files • Efficient memory management • Merger read/write large buffers for performance and IO efficiency Block 65 Block 66 … Block 67 … Block 65 Block 66 … Block 67 … Block 65 Block 66 … Block 67 … … Block 65-1 Block 65-2 Block 65-m … Block 66-1 Block 66-2 Block 66-m … BufferedRead BufferedWrite Merge
- 16. 3. Deployment and observed gains
- 17. Deployment • Started staged rollout late last year • Completed in April, running stably for over a month
- 18. SOS + zstd • Rollout includes zstd compression with SOS • Combined they produce a net gain in IO and Compute efficiency
- 19. SOS + zstd • Rollout includes zstd compression with SOS • Combined they produce a net gain in IO and Compute efficiency SOS zstd Net Spill I/O Shuffle I/O
- 20. SOS + zstd • Rollout includes zstd compression with SOS • Combined they produce a net gain in IO and Compute efficiency SOS zstd Net Spill I/O Regression Gain Small Gain Shuffle I/O
- 21. SOS + zstd • Rollout includes zstd compression with SOS • Combined they produce a net gain in IO and Compute efficiency SOS zstd Net Spill I/O Regression Gain Small Gain Shuffle I/O Gain Small Gain Gain
- 22. SOS + zstd • Rollout includes zstd compression with SOS • Combined they produce a net gain in IO and Compute efficiency SOS zstd Net Spill I/O Regression Gain Small Gain Shuffle I/O Gain Small Gain Gain SOS zstd Net CPU time Reserved CPU time
- 23. SOS + zstd • Rollout includes zstd compression with SOS • Combined they produce a net gain in IO and Compute efficiency SOS zstd Net Spill I/O Regression Gain Small Gain Shuffle I/O Gain Small Gain Gain SOS zstd Net CPU time No change Small Regression Small Regression Reserved CPU time
- 24. SOS + zstd • Rollout includes zstd compression with SOS • Combined they produce a net gain in IO and Compute efficiency SOS zstd Net Spill I/O Regression Gain Small Gain Shuffle I/O Gain Small Gain Gain SOS zstd Net CPU time No change Small Regression Small Regression Reserved CPU time Gain No change Gain
- 25. IO Gains: Request-level Spark-level I/O requests: number of application-level R/W requests made • 7.5x less
- 26. IO Gains: Disk-level Disk service time: time spent on disks in the storage system • 2x more efficient
- 27. IO Gains: Disk-level Disk service time: time spent on disks in the storage system • 2x more efficient Average IO Size: average size of IO request at the disks • 2.5x increase
- 28. Compute Gains Reserved CPU time: resources allocated for Spark executors Total 10% Gain • CPU time: time spent using CPU à 5% Regression • I/O time: time spent waiting (not using CPU) à 75% Gain Currently working on increasing these gains
- 29. 4. Summary
- 30. 1) Shuffle at large scale induces large fragmented shuffle I/Os 2) SOS provides a solution to optimize these I/Os 3) SOS deployed and running stably at Facebook scale 4) Observed gains of 2x more efficient I/O which translates to 10% more efficient compute 5) Plan to contribute back to Apache Spark Summary
- 31. Questions?