Scheduling in Mapreduce Clusters

MapReduce is a framework proposed by Google for processing huge amounts of data in a distributed environment. The simplicity of the programming model and the fault-tolerance feature of the framework make it very popular in Big Data processing. As MapReduce clusters get popular, their scheduling becomes increasingly important. On one hand, many MapReduce applications have high performance requirements, for example, on response time and/or throughput. On the other hand, with the increasing size of MapReduce clusters, the energy-efficient scheduling of MapReduce clusters becomes inevitable. These scheduling challenges, however, have not been systematically studied. The objective of this dissertation is to provide MapReduce applications with low cost and energy consumption through the development of scheduling theory and algorithms, energy models, and energy-aware resource management. In particular, we will investigate energy-efficient scheduling in hybrid CPU-GPU MapReduce clusters. This research work is expected to have a breakthrough in Big Data processing, particularly in providing green computing to Big Data applications such as social network analysis, medical care data mining, and financial fraud detection. The tools we propose to develop are expected to increase utilization and reduce energy consumption for MapReduce clusters. In this PhD dissertation, we propose to address the aforementioned challenges by investigating and developing 1) a match-making scheduling algorithm for improving the data locality of Map- Reduce applications, 2) a real-time scheduling algorithm for heterogeneous Map- Reduce clusters, and 3) an energy-efficient scheduler for hybrid CPU-GPU Map- Reduce cluster. Advisers: Ying Lu and David Swanso

Allocating MapReduce workflows with deadlines to heterogeneous servers in a cloud data center

[EN] Total profit is one of the most important factors to be considered from the perspective of resource providers. In this paper, an original MapReduce workflow scheduling with deadline and data locality is proposed to maximize total profit of resource providers. A new workflow conversion based on dynamic programming and ChainMap/ChainReduce is designed to decrease transmission times among MapReduce jobs of workflows. A new deadline division considering execution time, float time and job level is proposed to obtain better deadlines of MapReduce jobs in workflows. With the adapted replica strategy in MapReduce workflow, a new task scheduling is proposed to improve data locality which assigns tasks to servers with the earliest completion time in order to ensure resource providers obtain more profit. Experimental results show that the proposed heuristic results in larger total profit than other adopted algorithms.This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFB1400801), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61872077, 61832004) and Collaborative Innovation Center of Wireless Communications Technology. Rubén Ruiz is partly supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities, under the project ¿OPTEP-Port Terminal Operations Optimization¿ (No. RTI2018-094940-B-I00) financed with FEDER funds¿.Wang, J.; Li, X.; Ruiz García, R.; Xu, H.; Chu, D. (2020). Allocating MapReduce workflows with deadlines to heterogeneous servers in a cloud data center. Service Oriented Computing and Applications. 14(2):101-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-020-00290-1S101118142Zaharia M, Chowdhury M, Franklin M et al (2010) Spark: cluster computing with working sets. In: Usenix conference on hot topics in cloud computing, pp 1765–1773Li L, Ma Z, Liu L et al (2013) Hadoop-based ARIMA algorithm and its application in weather forecast. Int J Database Theory Appl 6(5):119–132Xun Y, Zhang J, Qin X (2017) FiDoop: parallel mining of frequent itemsets using MapReduce. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 46(3):313–325Wang Y, Shi W (2014) Budget-driven scheduling algorithms for batches of MapReduce jobs in heterogeneous clouds. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 2(3):306–319Tiwari N, Sarkar S, Bellur U et al (2015) Classification framework of MapReduce scheduling algorithms. ACM Comput Surv 47(3):1–49Bu Y, Howe B, Balazinska M et al (2012) The HaLoop approach to large-scale iterative data analysis. VLDB J 21(2):169–190Gunarathne T, Zhang B, Wu T et al (2013) Scalable parallel computing on clouds using Twister4Azure iterative MapReduce. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(4):1035–1048Zhang Y, Gao Q, Gao L et al (2012) iMapReduce: a distributed computing framework for iterative computation. J Grid Comput 10(1):47–68Dong X, Wang Y, Liao H (2011) Scheduling mixed real-time and non-real-time applications in MapReduce environment. In: International conference on parallel and distributed systems, pp 9–16Tang Z, Zhou J, Li K et al (2013) A MapReduce task scheduling algorithm for deadline constraints. Clust Comput 16(4):651–662Zhang W, Rajasekaran S, Wood T et al (2014) MIMP: deadline and interference aware scheduling of Hadoop virtual machines. In: International symposium on cluster, cloud and grid computing, pp 394–403Teng F, Magoulès F, Yu L et al (2014) A novel real-time scheduling algorithm and performance analysis of a MapReduce-based cloud. J Supercomput 69(2):739–765Palanisamy B, Singh A, Liu L (2015) Cost-effective resource provisioning for MapReduce in a cloud. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(5):1265–1279Hashem I, Anuar N, Marjani M et al (2018) Multi-objective scheduling of MapReduce jobs in big data processing. Multimed Tools Appl 77(8):9979–9994Xu X, Tang M, Tian Y (2017) QoS-guaranteed resource provisioning for cloud-based MapReduce in dynamical environments. Future Gener Comput Syst 78(1):18–30Li H, Wei X, Fu Q et al (2014) MapReduce delay scheduling with deadline constraint. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 26(3):766–778Polo J, Becerra Y, Carrera D et al (2013) Deadline-based MapReduce workload management. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manag 10(2):231–244Chen C, Lin J, Kuo S (2018) MapReduce scheduling for deadline-constrained jobs in heterogeneous cloud computing systems. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 6(1):127–140Kao Y, Chen Y (2016) Data-locality-aware MapReduce real-time scheduling framework. J Syst Softw 112:65–77Bok K, Hwang J, Lim J et al (2017) An efficient MapReduce scheduling scheme for processing large multimedia data. Multimed Tools Appl 76(16):1–24Chen Y, Borthakur D, Borthakur D et al (2012) Energy efficiency for large-scale MapReduce workloads with significant interactive analysis. In: ACM european conference on computer systems, pp 43–56Mashayekhy L, Nejad M, Grosu D et al (2015) Energy-aware scheduling of MapReduce jobs for big data applications. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(10):2720–2733Lei H, Zhang T, Liu Y et al (2015) SGEESS: smart green energy-efficient scheduling strategy with dynamic electricity price for data center. J Syst Softw 108:23–38Oliveira D, Ocana K, Baiao F et al (2012) A provenance-based adaptive scheduling heuristic for parallel scientific workflows in clouds. J Grid Comput 10(3):521–552Li S, Hu S, Abdelzaher T (2015) The packing server for real-time scheduling of MapReduce workflows. In: IEEE real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium, pp 51–62Cai Z, Li X, Ruiz R et al (2017) A delay-based dynamic scheduling algorithm for bag-of-task workflows with stochastic task execution times in clouds. Future Gener Comput Syst 71:57–72Cai Z, Li X, Ruiz R (2017) Resource provisioning for task-batch based workflows with deadlines in public clouds. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2017.2663426Cai Z, Li X, Gupta J (2016) Heuristics for provisioning services to workflows in XaaS clouds. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 9(2):250–263Li X, Cai Z (2017) Elastic resource provisioning for cloud workflow applications. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 14(2):1195–1210Tang Z, Liu M, Ammar A et al (2014) An optimized MapReduce workflow scheduling algorithm for heterogeneous computing. J Supercomput 72(6):1–21Xu C, Yang J, Yin K et al (2017) Optimal construction of virtual networks for cloud-based MapReduce workflows. Comput Netw 112:194–207Chiara S, Danilo A, Gianpaolo C et al (2013) Optimizing service selection and allocation in situational computing applications. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 6(3):414–428Baresi L, Elisabetta D, Carlo G et al (2007) A framework for the deployment of adaptable web service compositions. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 1(1):75–91Lim H, Herodotou H, Babu S (2012) Stubby: a transformation-based optimizer for MapReduce workflows. VLDB Endow 5(11):1196–1207Ke H, Li P, Guo S et al (2016) On traffic-aware partition and aggregation in MapReduce for big data applications. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 27(3):818–828Yu W, Wang Y, Que X et al (2015) Virtual shuffling for efficient data movement in MapReduce. IEEE Trans Comput 64(2):556–568Chowdhury M, Zaharia M, Ma J et al (2011) Managing data transfers in computer clusters with orchestra. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun 41(4):98–109Guo D, Xie J, Zhou X et al (2015) Exploiting efficient and scalable shuffle transfers in future data center network. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(4):997–1009Li D, Yu Y, He W et al (2015) Willow: saving data center network energy for network-limited flows. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(9):2610–2620Tan J, Meng X, Zhang L (2013) Coupling task progress for MapReduce resource-aware scheduling. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp 1618–1626Hammoud M, Rehman M, Sakr M (2012) Center-of-gravity reduce task scheduling to lower MapReduce network traffic. In: International conference on cloud computing, pp 49–58Guo Z, Fox G, Zhou M et al (2012) Improving resource utilization in MapReduce. In: International conference on cluster computing, pp 402–410Fischer M, Su X, Yin Y (2010) Assigning tasks for efficiency in Hadoop. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM symposium on parallelism in algorithms and architectures, pp 30–39Zhu Y, Jiang Y, Wu W et al (2014) Minimizing makespan and total completion time in MapReduce-like systems. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp 2166–2174Kavulya S, Tan J, Gandhi R et al (2010) An analysis of traces from a production MapReduce cluster. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on cluster, cloud and grid computing, pp 94–103Abrishami S, Naghibzadeh M, Epema D (2013) Deadline-constrained workflow scheduling algorithms for Infrastructure as a Service clouds. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(1):158–169Fernando B, Edmundo R (2010) Towards the scheduling of multiple workflows on computational grids. J Grid Comput 8(3):419–441Tiwari N, Sarkar S, Bellur U et al (2015) Classification framework of MapReduce scheduling algorithms. ACM Comput Surv 47(3):1–38Verma A, Cherkasova L, Campbell R (2013) Orchestrating an ensemble of MapReduce jobs for minimizing their makespan. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput 10(5):314–327Heintz B, Chandra A, Sitaraman R et al (2017) End-to-end optimization for geo-distributed MapReduce. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 4(3):293–306Chen L, Li X (2018) Cloud workflow scheduling with hybrid resource provisioning. J Supercomput 74(12):6529–6553Li X, Jiang T, Ruiz R (2016) Heuristics for periodical batch job scheduling in a MapReduce computing framework. Inf Sci 326:119–133Vanhoucheabcd M, Maenhout B, Tavares L (2008) An evaluation of the adequacy of project network generators with systematically sampled networks. Eur J Oper Res 187(2):511–52

A Tale of Two Data-Intensive Paradigms: Applications, Abstractions, and Architectures

Scientific problems that depend on processing large amounts of data require overcoming challenges in multiple areas: managing large-scale data distribution, co-placement and scheduling of data with compute resources, and storing and transferring large volumes of data. We analyze the ecosystems of the two prominent paradigms for data-intensive applications, hereafter referred to as the high-performance computing and the Apache-Hadoop paradigm. We propose a basis, common terminology and functional factors upon which to analyze the two approaches of both paradigms. We discuss the concept of "Big Data Ogres" and their facets as means of understanding and characterizing the most common application workloads found across the two paradigms. We then discuss the salient features of the two paradigms, and compare and contrast the two approaches. Specifically, we examine common implementation/approaches of these paradigms, shed light upon the reasons for their current "architecture" and discuss some typical workloads that utilize them. In spite of the significant software distinctions, we believe there is architectural similarity. We discuss the potential integration of different implementations, across the different levels and components. Our comparison progresses from a fully qualitative examination of the two paradigms, to a semi-quantitative methodology. We use a simple and broadly used Ogre (K-means clustering), characterize its performance on a range of representative platforms, covering several implementations from both paradigms. Our experiments provide an insight into the relative strengths of the two paradigms. We propose that the set of Ogres will serve as a benchmark to evaluate the two paradigms along different dimensions.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figure

H-word: Supporting job scheduling in Hadoop with workload-driven data redistribution

The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-44039-2_21Today’s distributed data processing systems typically follow a query shipping approach and exploit data locality for reducing network traffic. In such systems the distribution of data over the cluster resources plays a significant role, and when skewed, it can harm the performance of executing applications. In this paper, we addressthe challenges of automatically adapting the distribution of data in a cluster to the workload imposed by the input applications. We propose a generic algorithm, named H-WorD, which, based on the estimated workload over resources, suggests alternative execution scenarios of tasks, and hence identifies required transfers of input data a priori, for timely bringing data close to the execution. We exemplify our algorithm in the context of MapReduce jobs in a Hadoop ecosystem. Finally, we evaluate our approach and demonstrate the performance gains of automatic data redistribution.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Hadoop Performance Analysis Model with Deep Data Locality

Background: Hadoop has become the base framework on the big data system via the simple concept that moving computation is cheaper than moving data. Hadoop increases a data locality in the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) to improve the performance of the system. The network traffic among nodes in the big data system is reduced by increasing a data-local on the machine. Traditional research increased the data-local on one of the MapReduce stages to increase the Hadoop performance. However, there is currently no mathematical performance model for the data locality on the Hadoop. Methods: This study made the Hadoop performance analysis model with data locality for analyzing the entire process of MapReduce. In this paper, the data locality concept on the map stage and shuffle stage was explained. Also, this research showed how to apply the Hadoop performance analysis model to increase the performance of the Hadoop system by making the deep data locality. Results: This research proved the deep data locality for increasing performance of Hadoop via three tests, such as, a simulation base test, a cloud test and a physical test. According to the test, the authors improved the Hadoop system by over 34% by using the deep data locality. Conclusions: The deep data locality improved the Hadoop performance by reducing the data movement in HDFS