Random Notes
  • Introduction
  • Reading list
  • Theory
    • Index
      • Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process
      • Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System
      • Using Reasoning About Knowledge to analyze Distributed Systems
      • CAP Twelve Years Later: How the “Rules” Have Changed
      • A Note on Distributed Computing
  • Operating System
    • Index
  • Storage
    • Index
      • Tachyon: Reliable, Memory Speed Storage for Cluster Computing Frameworks
      • Exploiting Commutativity For Practical Fast Replication
      • Don’t Settle for Eventual: Scalable Causal Consistency for Wide-Area Storage with COPS
      • Building Consistent Transactions with Inconsistent Replication
      • Managing Update Conflicts in Bayou, a Weakly Connected Replicated Storage System
      • Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database
      • Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data
      • The Google File System
      • Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-value Store
      • Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications
      • Replicated Data Consistency Explained Through Baseball
      • Session Guarantees for Weakly Consistent Replicated Data
      • Flat Datacenter Storage
      • Small Cache, Big Effect: Provable Load Balancing forRandomly Partitioned Cluster Services
      • DistCache: provable load balancing for large-scale storage systems with distributed caching
      • Short Summaries
  • Coordination
    • Index
      • Logical Physical Clocks and Consistent Snapshots in Globally Distributed Databases
      • Paxos made simple
      • ZooKeeper: Wait-free coordination for Internet-scale systems
      • Just Say NO to Paxos Overhead: Replacing Consensus with Network Ordering
      • Keeping CALM: When Distributed Consistency is Easy
      • In Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm
      • A comprehensive study of Convergent and Commutative Replicated Data Types
  • Fault Tolerance
    • Index
      • The Mystery Machine: End-to-end Performance Analysis of Large-scale Internet Services
      • Gray Failure: The Achilles’ Heel of Cloud-Scale Systems
      • Capturing and Enhancing In Situ System Observability for Failure Detection
      • Check before You Change: Preventing Correlated Failures in Service Updates
      • Efficient Scalable Thread-Safety-Violation Detection
      • REPT: Reverse Debugging of Failures in Deployed Software
      • Redundancy Does Not Imply Fault Tolerance
      • Fixed It For You:Protocol Repair Using Lineage Graphs
      • The Good, the Bad, and the Differences: Better Network Diagnostics with Differential Provenance
      • Lineage-driven Fault Injection
      • Short Summaries
  • Cloud Computing
    • Index
      • Improving MapReduce Performance in Heterogeneous Environments
      • CLARINET: WAN-Aware Optimization for Analytics Queries
      • MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
      • Dryad: Distributed Data-Parallel Programs from Sequential Building Blocks
      • Resource Management
      • Apache Hadoop YARN: Yet Another Resource Negotiator
      • Mesos: A Platform for Fine-Grained Resource Sharing in the Data Center
      • Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair Allocation of Multiple Resource Types
      • Large-scale cluster management at Google with Borg
      • MapReduce Online
      • Delay Scheduling: A Simple Technique for Achieving Locality and Fairness in Cluster Scheduling
      • Reining in the Outliers in Map-Reduce Clusters using Mantri
      • Effective Straggler Mitigation: Attack of the Clones
      • Resilient Distributed Datasets: A Fault-Tolerant Abstraction for In-Memory Cluster Computing
      • Discretized Streams: Fault-Tolerant Streaming Computation at Scale
      • Sparrow: Distributed, Low Latency Scheduling
      • Making Sense of Performance in Data Analytics Framework
      • Monotasks: Architecting for Performance Clarity in Data Analytics Frameworks
      • Drizzle: Fast and Adaptable Stream Processing at Scale
      • Naiad: A Timely Dataflow System
      • The Dataflow Model:A Practical Approach to Balancing Correctness, Latency, and Cost in Massive-Scale
      • Interruptible Tasks:Treating Memory Pressure AsInterrupts for Highly Scalable Data-Parallel Program
      • PACMan: Coordinated Memory Caching for Parallel Jobs
      • Multi-Resource Packing for Cluster Schedulers
      • Other interesting papers
  • Systems for ML
    • Index
      • A Berkeley View of Systems Challenges for AI
      • Tiresias: A GPU Cluster Managerfor Distributed Deep Learning
      • Gandiva: Introspective Cluster Scheduling for Deep Learning
      • Workshop papers
      • Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems
      • Inference Systems
      • Parameter Servers and AllReduce
      • Federated Learning at Scale - Part I
      • Federated Learning at Scale - Part II
      • Learning From Non-IID data
      • Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications
      • PipeDream: Generalized Pipeline Parallelism for DNN Training
      • DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testingof Deep Learning Systems
      • Distributed Machine Learning Misc.
  • ML for Systems
    • Index
      • Short Summaries
  • Machine Learning
    • Index
      • Deep Learning with Differential Privacy
      • Accelerating Deep Learning via Importance Sampling
      • A Few Useful Things to Know About Machine Learning
  • Video Analytics
    • Index
      • Scaling Video Analytics on Constrained Edge Nodes
      • Focus: Querying Large Video Datasets with Low Latency and Low Cost
      • NoScope: Optimizing Neural Network Queriesover Video at Scale
      • Live Video Analytics at Scale with Approximation and Delay-Tolerance
      • Chameleon: Scalable Adaptation of Video Analytics
      • End-to-end Learning of Action Detection from Frame Glimpses in Videos
      • Short Summaries
  • Networking
    • Index
      • Salsify: Low-Latency Network Video through Tighter Integration between a Video Codec and a Transport
      • Learning in situ: a randomized experiment in video streaming
      • Short Summaries
  • Serverless
    • Index
      • Serverless Computing: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
      • Encoding, Fast and Slow: Low-Latency Video Processing Using Thousands of Tiny Threads
      • SAND: Towards High-Performance Serverless Computing
      • Pocket: Elastic Ephemeral Storage for Serverless Analytics
      • Fault-tolerant and Transactional Stateful Serverless Workflows
  • Resource Disaggregation
    • Index
  • Edge Computing
    • Index
  • Security/Privacy
    • Index
      • Differential Privacy
      • Honeycrisp: Large-Scale Differentially Private Aggregation Without a Trusted Core
      • Short Summaries
  • Misc.
    • Index
      • Rate Limiting
      • Load Balancing
      • Consistency Models in Distributed System
      • Managing Complexity
      • System Design
      • Deep Dive into the Spark Scheduler
      • The Actor Model
      • Python Global Interpreter Lock
      • About Research and PhD
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • TL;DR:
  • Motivation:
  • Summary:
  • Causes of outliers‌:
  • Mantri:

Was this helpful?

  1. Cloud Computing
  2. Index

Reining in the Outliers in Map-Reduce Clusters using Mantri

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/osdi10/tech/full_papers/Ananthanarayanan.pdf

PreviousDelay Scheduling: A Simple Technique for Achieving Locality and Fairness in Cluster SchedulingNextEffective Straggler Mitigation: Attack of the Clones

Last updated 5 years ago

Was this helpful?

TL;DR:

This paper present Mantri, a system that monitor tasks and culls outliers using cause- and resource-aware techniques. Mantri’s strategies include restarting outliers, network-aware placement of tasks and protecting outputs of valuable tasks. Deployment in Bing's production cluster shows that Mantri improves job completion times by 32%

Motivation:

Experiment in production shows that outliers in Mapreduce jobs inflate the completion time by 32% at median. The authors argue three root causes of straggler. 1. Machine characteristics 2. Network characteristics: Over-subscribed datacenter network results in congestion among different path. 3. Input Skew: Partitioning data over a low entropy key space leads to a skew in the input sizes.[1]

‌While the first cause is identified by previous works such as LATE, the second and the third remain unexploited. In addition, previous works only act at the end of a phase, which will miss early outliers. Even worse, none of the previous work protect against data loss.

Summary:

In short, Mantri is a system that monitors task and culls outliers based on their causes. It uses the following techniques: 1) Restarting outlier tasks cognizant of resource constraints and work imbalances 2) Network aware placement of tasks, and 3) Protecting output of tasks based on cost-benefit analysis.

Causes of outliers‌:

Data Skew: Dividing work evenly is a non-trivial problem. First, scheduling each additional task has overhead at the job manager.[2] Network bandwidth might also make it not feasible to split work into multiple tasks and move data over the network. A third reason is poor coding practice.

‌Cross-rack Traffic: Since the maps are spread across the cluster, regardless of where a reduce task is placed, it will read a lot of data from other racks. Current implementation(e.g. Hadoop) place reduce tasks on any machine with spare slots. Thus, a rack that has too many reduce tasks will be congested on its network link, leading to outliers.

‌Bad and Busy Machines: Bad Machines which inflate the runtime are randomly spread across the cluster, but recompilations are more localized. Half of them happen on 5% of the machines in the cluster. When a machine loses the output of a task, it has a higher chance of losing the output of other tasks. So, replicate the outputs to protect against data loss on another machine within the same rack might help.

Mantri:

Based on task progress reports, Mantri estimates for each task the remaining time to finish, tremt_{rem} trem​ ​, and the predicted completion time of a new copy of the task, tnewt_{new} tnew​ . Tasks report progress once every 10s or ten times in their lifetime, whichever is smaller.(We use △ \bigtriangleup △ to refer to this period.)

Resource-aware Restart:

Mantri uses two variants of restart, the first kills a running task and restarts it elsewhere, the second schedules a duplicate copy. (In either method, Mantri restarts only when P( tnewt_{new} tnew​< tremt_{rem} trem​ ) is high. Mantri kills and restarts a task if its remaining time is so large that there is more than even chance that a restart would finish sooner.

However, the current job schuler(in 2010) incurs a queueing delay before restarting a task, which can be large and highly variant. Thus, Mantri will schedule duplicates. As we mentioned before, duplicates consume extra resources which may increase job completion time. Hence, when there are outstanding tasks and no spare slots, Mantri schedule a duplicate only if the total amount of computation resource consumed decreases.

When spare slots are available, as happens towards the end of the job, Mantri schedules duplicates more aggressively.

Network-Aware Placement:

A rack with too many reduce tasks is congested on its downlink and such tasks will straggle. With Mantri, each job manager places tasks so as to minimize the load on the network and avoid self-interference among its tasks. [3]

Avoiding Recomputation:

To mitigate costly recomputations that stall a job, Mantri protects against interim data loss by replicating task output. It acts early by replicating those outputs whose cost to recompute exceeds the cost to replicate. Mantri estimates the cost to recompute as the product of the probability that the output will be lost and the time to repeat the task.[4]

Data-aware Task ordering:

The last interesting decision made by Mantri is that it will schedule tasks in a phase in descending order of their.

If you are interested of how tremt_{rem}trem​ and tnewt_{new} tnew​ are calculated, please read section 5.5

[1] Again, Duplicating these tasks would not make them run faster and will waste resources. See comments on the LATE paper

[2] For example, if you divide a task with large input size to several smaller tasks.

[3] See paper for details.

[4]Again, see paper section 5.4 for details.

Reining in the Outliers in Map-Reduce Clusters using Mantri | USENIX
Logo
Causes and solutions of outliers