Performance evaluation of big data frameworks for large-scale data analytics

Conference Paper (PDF Available) · December 2016with 684 Reads
DOI: 10.1109/BigData.2016.7840633
Conference: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)
Abstract
The increasing adoption of Big Data analytics has led to a high demand for efficient technologies in order to manage and process large datasets. Popular MapReduce frameworks such as Hadoop are being replaced by emerging ones like Spark or Flink, which improve both the programming APIs and performance. However, few works have focused on comparing these frameworks. This paper addresses this issue by performing a comparative evaluation of Hadoop, Spark and Flink using representative Big Data workloads and considering factors like performance and scalability. Moreover, the behavior of these frameworks has been characterized by modifying some of the main parameters of the workloads such as HDFS block size, input data size, interconnect network or thread configuration. The analysis of the results has shown that replacing Hadoop with Spark or Flink can lead to a reduction in execution times by 77% and 70% on average, respectively, for non-sort benchmarks.
Performance Evaluation of Big Data Frameworks for Large-Scale Data Analytics
Jorge Veiga, Roberto R. Exp´
osito, Xo´
an C. Pardo, Guillermo L. Taboada, Juan Touri˜
no
Computer Architecture Group, Universidade da Coru˜
na, Spain
{jorge.veiga, rreye, pardo, taboada, juan}@udc.es
Abstract—The increasing adoption of Big Data analytics
has led to a high demand for efficient technologies in order
to manage and process large datasets. Popular MapReduce
frameworks such as Hadoop are being replaced by emerging
ones like Spark or Flink, which improve both the programming
APIs and performance. However, few works have focused
on comparing these frameworks. This paper addresses this
issue by performing a comparative evaluation of Hadoop,
Spark and Flink using representative Big Data workloads and
considering factors like performance and scalability. Moreover,
the behavior of these frameworks has been characterized by
modifying some of the main parameters of the workloads such
as HDFS block size, input data size, interconnect network or
thread configuration. The analysis of the results has shown that
replacing Hadoop with Spark or Flink can lead to a reduction
in execution times by 77% and 70% on average, respectively,
for non-sort benchmarks.
Keywords-Big Data; MapReduce; Hadoop; Spark; Flink
I. INTRODUCTION
In the last decade, Big Data analytics has been widely
adopted by many organizations to obtain valuable informa-
tion from the large datasets they manage. This is mainly
caused by the appearance of new technologies that provide
powerful functionalities to the end users, who can focus on
the transformations to be performed on the data rather than
on the parallelization of the algorithms.
One of these technologies is Apache Hadoop [1], an
open-source implementation of the MapReduce model [2].
The success of Hadoop is mainly due to its parallelization
abstraction, fault-tolerance and scalable architecture, which
supports both distributed storage and processing of large
datasets. However, the performance of Hadoop is severely
limited by redundant memory copies and disk operations
that it performs when processing the data [3]. As a result,
new Big Data frameworks have appeared on the scene in
the last several years, claiming to be a worthy alternative
to Hadoop as they improve its performance by means of
in-memory computing techniques. Apache Spark [4] and
Apache Flink [5] are the ones that have attracted more atten-
tion due to their easy-to-use programming APIs, high-level
data processing operators and performance enhancements.
Although both authors of Spark and Flink provide ex-
perimental results about their performance, there is lack
of impartial studies comparing the frameworks. This kind
of analysis is extremely important to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of current technologies and help developers
to determine the best characteristics for future Big Data
systems. Hence, this paper aims to assess the performance of
Hadoop, Spark and Flink on equal terms, with the following
contributions:
Comparative performance evaluation of Hadoop, Spark
and Flink with various batch and iterative workloads.
Characterization of the impact of several experimental
parameters on the overall performance.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II
presents the related work. Section III briefly introduces the
main characteristics of Hadoop, Spark and Flink. Section IV
describes the experimental configuration and Section V
analyzes the performance results. Finally, Section VI sum-
marizes our concluding remarks and proposes future work.
II. RE LATE D WORK
Despite the importance of having performance studies
that compare Hadoop, Spark and Flink, there are still not
many publications on the subject. Authors of Spark [4]
and Flink [5] have shown that their frameworks provide
better performance than Hadoop using several workloads.
A few impartial references compare Spark with Hadoop.
In [6], several frameworks including Hadoop (1.0.3) and
Spark (0.8.0) are evaluated on Amazon EC2 using iterative
algorithms. Results show that Spark outperforms Hadoop
up to 48x for the PAM clustering algorithm and up to 99x
for the CG linear system solver. But for the CLARA k-
medoid clustering algorithm Spark is slower than Hadoop
due to difficulties in handling a dataset with large number
of small objects. In [7], Hadoop (2.4.0) and Spark (1.3.0)
are evaluated using a set of data analytics workloads on a
4-node cluster. Results show that Spark outperforms Hadoop
by 2.5x for WordCount and 5x for K-Means and PageRank.
Authors point out the efficiency of the hash-based aggre-
gation component for combine and the RDD caching as the
main reasons. An exception is the Sort benchmark for which
Hadoop is 2x faster than Spark, showing a more efficient
execution model for data shuffling.
It was only recently that some comparisons between Spark
and Flink have been published. In [8], both frameworks
(versions are not mentioned) are compared on a 4-node
cluster using real-world datasets. Results show that Spark
outperforms Flink by up to 2x for WordCount, while Flink
is better than Spark by up to 3x for K-Means, 2.5x for
PageRank and 5x for a relational query. Authors conclude
that the processing of some operators like groupBy or join
and the pipelining of data between operators are more
efficient in Flink, and that the Flink optimizer provides better
performance with complex algorithms. In [9], Flink (0.9.0)
and Spark (1.3.1) are evaluated on Amazon EC2 using three
workloads from genomic applications over datasets of up to
billions of genomic regions. Results show that Flink outper-
forms Spark by up to 3x for the Histogram and Mapping
to Region workloads and that, contrary to the results of the
relational query in [8], Spark was better by up to 4x for the
Join workload. Authors conclude that concurrent execution
in Flink is more efficient because it produces less sequential
stages and that the tuple-based pipelining of data between
operators of Flink is more efficient than the block-based
Spark counterpart.
Finally, and although not in the scope of this work,
[10], [11] and [12] provide recent comparisons of Big Data
frameworks from the streaming point of view.
III. TECHNOLOGICAL BACK GROUND
The main characteristics of Hadoop [1], Spark [4] and
Flink [5] are explained below.
Hadoop: As the de-facto standard implementation of
the MapReduce model [2], Hadoop has been widely adopted
by many organizations to store and compute large datasets.
It mainly consists of two components: (1) the Hadoop
Distributed File System (HDFS) and (2) the Hadoop MapRe-
duce engine. The MapReduce model is based on two user-
defined functions, map and reduce, which compute the data
records represented by key-value pairs. The map function
extracts the relevant characteristics of each pair and the
reduce function operates these characteristics to obtain the
desired result. Although it can provide good scalability for
batch workloads, the Hadoop MapReduce engine is strictly
disk-based incurring high disk overhead and requiring extra
memory copies during data processing.
Spark: Spark increases the variety of transformations
that the user can perform over the data, while still including
several operators for key-based computations (e.g., sort-
ByKey), which makes Spark particularly suited to implement
classic key-based MapReduce algorithms. The programming
model of Spark is based on the abstraction called Resilient
Distributed Datasets (RDDs) [13], which holds the data
objects in memory to reduce the overhead caused by disk and
network operations [4]. This kind of processing is specially
well suited for algorithms that carry out several transforma-
tions over the same dataset, like iterative algorithms. By
storing intermediate results in memory, Spark avoids the
use of HDFS between iterations and thus optimizes the
performance of these workloads.
Flink: Evolved from Stratosphere [5], Flink uses a sim-
ilar approach to Spark to improve Hadoop performance by
using in-memory processing techniques. One of them is the
Table I: DAS-4 node configuration
Hardware configuration
CPU 2 ×Intel Xeon E5620 Westmere
CPU Speed/Turbo 2.4 GHz/2.66 GHz
#Cores 8
Memory 24 GB DDR3
Disk 2 ×1 TB HDD
Network IB (40 Gbps) & GbE
Software configuration
OS version CentOS release 6.6
Kernel 2.6.32-358.18.1.el6.x86 64
Java Oracle JDK 1.8.0 25
use of efficient memory data structures that contain serial-
ized data instead of Java objects, avoiding excessive garbage
collections. Its programming model for batch processing is
based on the notion of DataSet, which is transformed by
high-level operations (e.g., FlatMap). Unlike Spark, Flink is
presented as a true streaming engine as it is able to send
data, tuple by tuple, from one operation to the next without
executing computations on batches. For batch processing,
batches are considered as finite sets of streaming data. It is
worth noting that Flink includes explicit iteration operators.
The bulk iterator is applied to complete DataSets, while the
delta iterator is only applied to the items that changed during
the last iteration.
IV. EXP ER IM EN TAL SETUP
This section presents the characteristics of the system
where the evaluations have been carried out, the configura-
tion of the frameworks and the settings for the workloads, as
well as the different experiments that have been performed.
A. Testbed configuration
The evaluations have been conducted on DAS-4 [14], a
multi-core cluster interconnected via InfiniBand (IB) and
Gigabit Ethernet (GbE). Table I shows the main hardware
and software characteristics of this system. Each node has
8 cores, 24 GB of memory and 2 disks of 1 TB.
The experiments have been carried out by using the
Big Data Evaluator tool (BDEv), which is an evolution
of the MapReduce Evaluator [15]. BDEv automates the
configuration of the frameworks, the generation of the input
datasets, the execution of the experiments and the collection
of the results.
B. Frameworks
Regarding software settings, the evaluations have used
stable versions of Hadoop (2.7.2), Spark (1.6.1) and Flink
(1.0.2). Both Spark and Flink have been deployed in the
stand-alone mode with HDFS 2.7.2. The frameworks have
been carefully configured according to their corresponding
user guides and the characteristics of the system (e.g., num-
ber of CPU cores, memory size). Table II shows the most
Table II: Configuration of the frameworks
Hadoop Spark Flink
HDFS block size 128 MB HDFS block size 128 MB HDFS block size 128 MB
Replication factor 3 Replication factor 3 Replication factor 3
Mapper/Reducer heap size 2.3 GB Executor heap size 18.8 GB TaskManager heap size 18.8 GB
Mappers per node 4 Workers per node 1 TaskManagers per node 1
Reducers per node 4 Worker cores 8 TaskManager cores 8
Shuffle parallel copies 20 Network buffers per node 512
IO sort MB 600 MB TaskManager memory preallocate false
IO sort spill percent 80% IO sort spill percent 80%
Table III: Benchmark sources
Benchmark Characterization Input data size Input generator Hadoop Spark Flink
WordCount CPU bound 100 GB RandomTextWriter Hadoop ex. Adapted from ex. Adapted from ex.
Grep CPU bound 10 GB RandomTextWriter Hadoop ex. Adapted from ex. Adapted from ex.
TeraSort I/O bound 100 GB TeraGen Hadoop ex. Adapted from [16] Adapted from [16]
Connected Components Iterative (8 iter.) 9 GB DataGen Pegasus Graphx Gelly
PageRank Iterative (8 iter.) 9 GB DataGen Pegasus Adapted from ex. Adapted from ex.
K-Means Iterative (8 iter.) 26 GB GenKMeansDataset Mahout MLlib Adapted from ex.
important parameters of the resulting configuration. The
network interface of the frameworks was configured to use
IP over InfiniBand (IPoIB), except in the GbE experiments
(see Section V-B).
C. Benchmarks
Table III describes the benchmarks used in the experi-
ments, along with their characterization as CPU bound, I/O
bound (disk and network) or iterative. The size of the input
datasets and the generators used for setting them up are
shown in the next two columns. The table also includes the
source of the benchmark codes, which have been carefully
studied in order to provide a fair performance comparison.
Hence, each framework uses a benchmark implementation
based on the same algorithm, taking the same input and
writing the same output to HDFS. Although the algorithm
remains unchanged, each framework employs an optimized
version adapted to its available functionalities. Therefore,
each benchmark uses a different implementation of the same
algorithm in order to obtain the same result. Further details
about each benchmark are given next.
WordCount: Counts the number of times each word
appears in the input dataset. Both WordCount and its input
data generator, RandomTextWriter, are provided as an ex-
ample (“ex.” in the table) in the Hadoop distribution. In the
case of Spark and Flink, the source code has been adapted
from their examples.
Grep: Counts the matches of a regular expression in
the input dataset. It is included in the Hadoop distribution,
and in the case of Spark and Flink it has been adapted from
their examples. Its data generator is also RandomTextWriter.
TeraSort: Sorts 100 Byte-sized key-value tuples. Its
implementation, as well as the TeraGen data generator, is
included in Hadoop. However, TeraSort is not provided as
an example for Spark and Flink, and so their source codes
have been adapted from [16].
Connected Components: Iterative graph algorithm that
finds the connected components of a graph. It is included in
Pegasus [17], a graph mining system built on top of Hadoop.
In the case of Spark and Flink, Connected Components
is supported by Graphx [18] and Gelly [19], respectively,
which are graph-oriented APIs. The input dataset is set up
by using the DataGen tool, included in the HiBench [20]
benchmark suite.
PageRank: Iterative graph algorithm which ranks ele-
ments by counting the number and quality of the links to
each one. Pegasus includes PageRank for Hadoop, and the
source codes for Spark and Flink have been adapted from
their examples. Although there are implementations avail-
able in Graphx and Gelly, these versions did not improve
the performance of the examples, and so they have not been
used in the experiments. The input dataset of PageRank is
also set up by DataGen.
K-Means: Iterative clustering algorithm that partitions
a set of samples into K clusters. Apache Mahout [21]
includes this algorithm for Hadoop and provides the dataset
generator, GenKMeansDataSet, while Spark uses the ef-
ficient implementation provided by its machine learning
library MLlib [22]. As the Flink machine library, Flink-ML,
does not include an implementation of K-Means yet, its
source code has been adapted from the example.
All these benchmarks are included in the last version
(2.2) of our BDEv tool, which is available to download at
http://bdev.des.udc.es.
D. Conducted evaluations
In order to perform a thorough experimental analysis, the
evaluations have studied two different aspects: performance
of the frameworks and impact of several configuration
parameters.
The first set of experiments, shown in Section V-A,
compares the performance and the strong scalability of
the frameworks. For doing so, the benchmarks have been
executed using 13, 25, 37 and 49 nodes. Each cluster size n
means 1 master and n-1 slave nodes. The input data size of
each benchmark is shown in Table III.
Section V-B analyzes the impact of some configuration
parameters on the overall performance of the frameworks.
Experiments have been carried out using different HDFS
block sizes, input data sizes, network interconnects and
thread configurations with the maximum cluster size that
has been considered (i.e., 49 nodes). Three benchmarks have
been selected for these experiments: WordCount, TeraSort
and PageRank that represent, respectively, three types of
workloads: CPU bound, I/O bound, and iterative.
The HDFS block sizes that have been evaluated are 64,
128, 256 and 512 MB, using the same input data size as in
Section V-A (see Table III). In the data size experiments,
WordCount and TeraSort have processed 100, 150, 200
and 250 GB, whereas PageRank has processed 9, 12.5,
16 and 19.5 GB, which correspond with 15, 20, 25 and
30 million pages, respectively. The network interconnects
that have been evaluated are GbE and IPoIB, configuring the
frameworks to use each interface for shuffle operations and
HDFS replications. These experiments (as well as the thread
configuration experiments described later) have used the
maximum data size considered, 250 GB for WordCount and
TeraSort, and 19.5 GB for PageRank, in order to maximize
their computational requirements.
The thread configurations of the frameworks determine
how the computational resources of each node are allo-
cated to the Java processes and threads. On the one hand,
Hadoop distributes the CPU cores between mappers and
reducers, which are single-threaded processes. The #map-
pers/#reducers configurations evaluated are 4/4, 5/3, 6/2
and 7/1. On the other hand, Spark and Flink use Workers
and TaskManagers, respectively, which are multi-threaded
manager processes that run several tasks in parallel. The
#managers/#cores per manager configurations evaluated are
1/8, 2/4, 4/2 and 8/1.
V. EX PE RI ME NTAL R ES ULTS
This section presents the analysis of the evaluation of
Hadoop, Spark and Flink in terms of performance and scal-
ability (Section V-A), as well as the impact of configuration
parameters (Section V-B). The graphs in this section show
the mean value from a minimum of 10 measurements, while
the observed standard deviations were not significant.
A. Performance and scalability
Execution times for all benchmarks are shown in Fig-
ure 1. As expected, these graphs demonstrate an important
performance improvement of Spark and Flink over Hadoop.
The comparison between Spark and Flink varies depending
on the benchmark. With the maximum cluster size, Spark
obtains the best results in WordCount and K-Means, while
Flink is better for PageRank. Both obtain similar results for
Grep, TeraSort and Connected Components.
In WordCount, Spark obtains the best results because of
its API, which provides a reduceByKey() function to sum
up the number of times each word appears. Flink uses a
groupBy().sum() approach, which seems to be less optimized
for this kind of workload. Furthermore, the CPU-bound
behavior of WordCount makes the memory optimizations
of Flink less significant compared to other benchmarks,
and even introduce a certain overhead when computing the
results.
In Grep, Spark and Flink widely outperform Hadoop due
to several reasons. The most important is the inadequacy
of the MapReduce API for this benchmark. In Hadoop, the
benchmark uses two MapReduce jobs: one for searching the
pattern and another for sorting the results. This produces
a high number of memory copies and writes to HDFS.
Spark and Flink take a different approach, selecting the
matching input lines by means of a filter() function, without
copying them. Next, the selected lines are counted and sorted
in memory. Moreover, the pattern matching in Hadoop is
performed within the map() function, which has only half
of the CPU cores of the nodes. In Spark and Flink the
parallelism of all the operations is set to the total number
of cores in the cluster.
TeraSort is the benchmark which shows the smallest
performance gap when comparing Hadoop with Spark and
Flink. The main reason is that Hadoop was originally
intended for sorting, being one of the core components of the
MapReduce engine. Although Spark and Flink outperform
Hadoop, its high scalability allows it to obtain competitive
results, especially when using 49 nodes. Spark and Flink are
in a statistical tie. A similar benchmark, Sort, has also been
evaluated in the experiments. However, the results were very
similar to those of TeraSort, and so they are not shown in
the graphs due to space constraints.
The performance of Spark and Flink for iterative algo-
rithms (Figures 1d-1f) is clearly better than that of Hadoop
(up to 87% improvement with 49 nodes). As mentioned in
Section IV-C, both frameworks provide optimized libraries
for graph algorithms, Graphx and Gelly, obtaining very
similar results for Connected Components. That is not the
case of PageRank, whose implementation has been derived
from the examples. In this benchmark, Flink obtains the best
performance mainly due to the use of delta iterations, which
only process those elements that have not reached their final
0
100
200
300
400
500
13 25 37 49
Time (s)
Cluster size (#nodes)
Hadoop Spark Flink
(a) WordCount execution times
0
500
1000
1500
2000
13 25 37 49
Time (s)
Cluster size (#nodes)
Hadoop Spark Flink
(b) Grep execution times
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
13 25 37 49
Time (s)
Cluster size (#nodes)
Hadoop Spark Flink
(c) TeraSort execution times
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
13 25 37 49
Time (s)
Cluster size (#nodes)
Hadoop Spark Flink
(d) Connected Components execution times
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
13 25 37 49
Time (s)
Cluster size (#nodes)
Hadoop Spark Flink
(e) PageRank execution times
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
13 25 37 49
Time (s)
Cluster size (#nodes)
Hadoop Spark Flink
(f) K-Means execution times
Figure 1: Performance results
value. However, Spark obtains the best results for K-Means
thanks to the optimized MLlib library, although it is expected
that the support of K-Means in Flink-ML can bridge this
performance gap.
To sum up, the performance results of this section show
that, excluding TeraSort, replacing Hadoop with Spark and
Flink can lead to a reduction in execution times by 77% and
70% on average, respectively, when using 49 nodes.
B. Impact of configuration parameters
This section shows how the performance of WordCount,
TeraSort and PageRank is affected when modifying some of
the configuration parameters of the experiments. Note that
those parameters which were not specifically modified keep
the values indicated in the experimental setup of Section IV
(see Table II).
1) HDFS block size: The performance values when using
different HDFS block sizes are shown in Figure 2. HDFS
manages the data in blocks of a certain size, which de-
termines the amount of data that is read in each task. In
WordCount, the block size does not have a great impact on
performance except for Hadoop, which obtains its best result
with 128 MB. Spark achieves it with 64 MB, and Flink has
almost the same result with 128 and 512 MB. TeraSort is the
benchmark more affected by the block size, and the optimal
value depends on the framework: 256 MB for Hadoop and
64 MB for Spark and Flink. In PageRank, Hadoop obtains
its best results with 64 MB, with descending performance
as the block size increases. In this benchmark, Spark and
Flink are not affected by the HDFS block size. This is
caused by the iterative behavior of PageRank. Hadoop stores
the intermediate results (i.e., between iterations) in HDFS,
and so it is more affected by its configuration. Spark and
Flink, which store intermediate results in memory, are only
influenced by the HDFS configuration when reading the
initial input and writing the final output. Taking into account
the results of the different benchmarks, the best option for
each framework, on average, is 128 MB for Hadoop and
Flink, and 64 MB for Spark.
2) Input data size: Figure 3 shows the performance when
executing different problem sizes. Analyzing the scalability
of WordCount, the slope is much steeper in Hadoop and
Flink than in Spark, being Spark the most scalable frame-
work. The same happens in TeraSort, enabling Spark to
widen the gap with Flink as the input data size increases.
Therefore, Spark is the most scalable framework for Tera-
Sort, although it is not the best performer in the 100 GB case.
For PageRank, Flink shows higher scalability than Hadoop
and Spark, whose slope is steeper. As previously explained,
Flink uses delta iterations to avoid re-processing the whole
dataset. This, along with efficient memory management to
avoid major garbage collections, makes Flink the most scal-
able framework for PageRank, obtaining execution times up
to 6.9x and 3.6x faster than Hadoop and Spark, respectively.
3) Interconnection network: The performance of the
frameworks when using GbE and IPoIB is shown in Fig-
ure 4. The impact of the network not only affects the inter-
node communications during the shuffle phase, but also
the writing operations to HDFS, which replicate the data
blocks among the slave nodes. Generally, reading the input
dataset does not imply any network traffic, as the data is
read locally in each node. In WordCount, Spark is the only
one which slightly benefits from using IPoIB. This is not
the case of TeraSort, which is the most network-intensive
benchmark under evaluation. Here, the use of IPoIB provides
a performance improvement of up to 12%, 41% and 11%
for Hadoop, Spark and Flink, respectively. In PageRank,
Hadoop and Spark also improve their performance when us-
ing IPoIB, while Flink maintains the same values. Therefore,
the high bandwidth provided by IPoIB seems to favor more
the block-based data pipelining of Spark than the tuple-based
Flink counterpart.
4) Thread configuration: Figure 5 displays the perfor-
mance of the frameworks with different thread configura-
tions. In Hadoop (see Figure 5a), the best configuration is
4 mappers and 4 reducers, except for WordCount, which is
7 mappers and 1 reducer. This is caused by the CPU-bound
behavior of WordCount, where most of the computation
is performed by mappers, and so increasing their number
reduces the execution time. In Spark, 1 Worker with 8 cores
is the best configuration except for PageRank, which is 4
Workers with 2 cores. Spark employs the same JVMs to
compute the different iterations of PageRank, involving a
lot of object creations/destructions. Therefore, the use of
smaller JVMs reduces the overhead of garbage collection
stops. However, it also decreases the parallelism within each
Worker and replicates some of the services computed in
them, like shuffle managers, causing the 8/1 configuration to
perform clearly the worst. Although performance is poorer
with this configuration, Spark executes all the benchmarks
successfully. That is not the case of Flink, where the results
for 8 TaskManagers and 1 core are not shown, as the exper-
iments with this configuration did not finished successfully
(not enough memory). It seems that Flink is not well suited
to use small JVM sizes. The best configuration for Flink is
2/4 for WordCount and PageRank, while 1/8 for TeraSort.
In Flink, iterative algorithms are not so affected by garbage
collections, due to the memory optimizations conducted in
order to avoid the creation/destruction of Java objects.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper has thoroughly evaluated Hadoop, Spark and
Flink in terms of performance and scalability, taking also
into account different framework configurations. The results
show that replacing Hadoop with Spark or Flink can lead to
significant performance improvements. However, the effort
needed to rewrite the source code of MapReduce workloads
to adapt them to the new APIs must be taken into account.
Currently, Spark is the framework which provides the best
results in general terms. It is now a much larger Apache
project comparatively to Flink, being a more mature frame-
work and superior in terms of market share and community.
Moreover, it includes a richer set of operations and a wide
range of tools compared to Flink.
However, Flink has definitely contributed with several
interesting and novel ideas, some of which are being adopted
by Spark. The transparent use of persistent memory manage-
ment using a custom object serializer for Flink operations
minimizes the overhead of garbage collections. Furthermore,
iterative algorithms can greatly benefit from the use of
explicit iterators (e.g., for PageRank execution times are up
to 6.9x and 3.6x faster than Hadoop and Spark, respectively).
As future work, we plan to investigate further on the im-
pact of more configuration parameters on the performance of
0
50
100
150
200
64MB 128MB 256MB 512MB
Time (s)
HDFS Block size
Hadoop Spark Flink
(a) WordCount
0
50
100
150
200
64MB 128MB 256MB 512MB
Time (s)
HDFS Block size
Hadoop Spark Flink
(b) TeraSort
0
200
400
600
800
1000
64MB 128MB 256MB 512MB
Time (s)
HDFS Block size
Hadoop Spark Flink
(c) PageRank
Figure 2: HDFS block size impact
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
100GB 150GB 200GB 250GB
Time (s)
Data size
Hadoop Spark Flink
(a) WordCount
0
100
200
300
400
500
100GB 150GB 200GB 250GB
Time (s)
Data size
Hadoop Spark Flink
(b) TeraSort
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
9GB 12.5GB 16GB 19.5GB
Time (s)
Data size
Hadoop Spark Flink
(c) PageRank
Figure 3: Input data size impact
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
GbE IPoIB
Time (s)
Interconnect network
Hadoop Spark Flink
(a) WordCount
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
GbE IPoIB
Time (s)
Interconnect network
Hadoop Spark Flink
(b) TeraSort
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
GbE IPoIB
Time (s)
Interconnect network
Hadoop Spark Flink
(c) PageRank
Figure 4: Network impact
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
4/4 5/3 6/2 7/1
Time (s)
Mappers/Reducers configuration
WordCount TeraSort PageRank
(a) Hadoop
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1/8 2/4 4/2 8/1
Time (s)
Workers/Cores configuration
WordCount TeraSort PageRank
(b) Spark
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1/8 2/4 4/2 8/1
Time (s)
TaskManagers/Cores configuration
WordCount TeraSort PageRank
(c) Flink
Figure 5: Analysis of different thread configurations
these frameworks (e.g., spilling threshold, network buffers).
We also intend to carry out a similar evaluation but focusing
on streaming workloads using Spark, Flink and other recent
streaming frameworks.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness of Spain and FEDER funds (80%) of
the European Union (TIN2013-42148-P) and by the FPU
Program of the Ministry of Education (FPU14/02805). We
thankfully acknowledge the Advanced School for Comput-
ing and Imaging (ASCI) and the Vrije University Amster-
dam for providing access to the DAS-4 cluster.
REFERENCES
[1] Apache Hadoop, http://hadoop.apache.org/, [Last visited: July
2016].
[2] J. Dean and S. Ghemawat, “MapReduce: Simplified data
processing on large clusters,Communications of the ACM,
vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 107–113, 2008.
[3] J. Veiga, R. R. Exp´
osito, G. L. Taboada, and J. Touri˜
no,
“Analysis and evaluation of MapReduce solutions on an HPC
cluster,Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 50, pp.
200–216, 2016.
[4] M. Zaharia, M. Chowdhury, M. J. Franklin, S. Shenker, and
I. Stoica, “Spark: Cluster computing with working sets,” in
Proc. of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Hot topics in Cloud
Computing (HotCloud’10), Boston, USA, 2010, pp. 1–7.
[5] A. Alexandrov et al., “The Stratosphere platform for Big Data
analytics,” The VLDB Journal, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 939–964,
2014.
[6] P. Jakovits and S. N. Srirama, “Evaluating MapReduce
frameworks for iterative scientific computing applications,” in
Proc. of the International Conference on High Performance
Computing & Simulation (HPCS’14), Bologna, Italy, 2014,
pp. 226–233.
[7] J. Shi et al., “Clash of the titans: MapReduce vs. Spark for
large scale data analytics,” in Proc. of the Very Large Data
Bases (VLDB) Endowment, vol. 8, no. 13, 2015, pp. 2110–
2121.
[8] N. Spangenberg, M. Roth, and B. Franczyk, “Evaluating new
approaches of Big Data analytics frameworks,” in Proc. of
the 18th International Conference on Business Information
Systems (BIS’15), Pozna´
n, Poland, 2015, pp. 28–37.
[9] M. Bertoni, S. Ceri, A. Kaitoua, and P. Pinoli, “Evaluating
cloud frameworks on genomic applications,” in Proc. of the
2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (IEEE
BigData 2015), Santa Clara, USA, 2015, pp. 193–202.
[10] S. Chintapalli et al., “Benchmarking streaming computation
engines: Storm, Flink and Spark streaming,” in Proc. of the
1st IEEE Workshop on Emerging Parallel and Distributed
Runtime Systems and Middleware (IPDRM’16), Chicago,
USA, 2016.
[11] J. Samosir, M. Indrawan-Santiago, and P. D. Haghighi, “An
evaluation of data stream processing systems for data driven
applications,” in Proc. of the International Conference on
Computational Science (ICCS’16), San Diego, USA, 2016,
pp. 439–449.
[12] S. Qian, G. Wu, J. Huang, and T. Das, “Benchmarking
Modern Distributed Streaming Platforms,” in Proc. of the
2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technol-
ogy (ICIT 2016), Taipei, Taiwan, 2016, pp. 592–598.
[13] M. Zaharia et al., “Resilient Distributed Datasets: A fault-
tolerant abstraction for in-memory cluster computing,” in
Proc. of the 9th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems
Design and Implementation (NSDI’12), San Jose, USA, 2012,
pp. 15–18.
[14] H. Bal et al., “A medium-scale distributed system for com-
puter science research: Infrastructure for the long term,”
Computer, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 54–63, 2016.
[15] J. Veiga, R. R. Exp´
osito, G. L. Taboada, and J. Touri˜
no,
“MREv: An automatic MapReduce Evaluation tool for Big
Data workloads,” in Proc. of the International Conference on
Computational Science (ICCS’15), Reykjav´
ık, Iceland, 2015,
pp. 80–89.
[16] TeraSort for Apache Spark and Flink, https://github.com/
eastcirclek/terasort, [Last visited: July 2016].
[17] U. Kang, C. E. Tsourakakis, and C. Faloutsos, “PEGASUS: A
peta-scale graph mining system implementation and observa-
tions,” in Proc. of the 9th IEEE International Conference on
Data Mining (ICDM’09), Miami, USA, 2009, pp. 229–238.
[18] Spark Graphx: Apache Spark Graph API, http://spark.apache.
org/graphx/, [Last visited: July 2016].
[19] Flink Gelly: Apache Flink Graph API, https://ci.apache.
org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/apis/batch/libs/gelly.html,
[Last visited: July 2016].
[20] S. Huang, J. Huang, J. Dai, T. Xie, and B. Huang, “The Hi-
Bench benchmark suite: Characterization of the MapReduce-
based data analysis,” in Proc. of the 26th IEEE International
Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW’10),
Long Beach, USA, 2010, pp. 41–51.
[21] Apache Mahout: Scalable machine learning and data mining,
http://mahout.apache.org/, [Last visited: July 2016].
[22] Spark MLlib: Apache Spark’s scalable Machine Learning li-
brary, http://spark.apache.org/mllib/, [Last visited: July 2016].
  • Poster
    Full-text available
    Training machine learning models at scale is a popular workload for distributed data flow systems. However, as these systems were originally built to fulfill quite different requirements it remains an open question how effectively they actually perform for ML workloads. In this paper we argue that benchmarking of large scale ML systems should consider state of the art, single machine libraries as baselines and sketch such a benchmark for distributed data flow systems. We present an experimental evaluation of a representative problem for XGBoost, LightGBM and Vowpal Wabbit and compare them to Apache Spark MLlib with respect to both: runtime and prediction quality. Our results indicate that while being able to robustly scale with increasing data set size, current generation data flow systems are surprisingly inefficient at training machine learning models at need substantial resources to come within reach of the performance of single machine libraries.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Background Long reads provide valuable information regarding the sequence composition of genomes. Long reads are usually very noisy which renders their alignments on the reference genome a daunting task. It may take days to process datasets enough to sequence a human genome on a single node. Hence, it is of primary importance to have an aligner which can operate on distributed clusters of computers with high performance in accuracy and speed. Results In this paper, we presented IMOS, an aligner for mapping noisy long reads to the reference genome. It can be used on a single node as well as on distributed nodes. In its single-node mode, IMOS is an Improved version of Meta-aligner (IM) enhancing both its accuracy and speed. IM is up to 6x faster than the original Meta-aligner. It is also implemented to run IM and Minimap2 on Apache Spark for deploying on a cluster of nodes. Moreover, multi-node IMOS is faster than SparkBWA while executing both IM (1.5x) and Minimap2 (25x). Conclusion In this paper, we purposed an architecture for mapping long reads to a reference. Due to its implementation, IMOS speed can increase almost linearly with respect to the number of nodes in a cluster. Also, it is a multi-platform application able to operate on Linux, Windows, and macOS.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Recently, increasingly large amounts of data are generated from a variety of sources.Existing data processing technologies are not suitable to cope with the huge amounts of generated data. Yet, many research works focus on Big Data, a buzzword referring to the processing of massive volumes of (unstructured) data. Recently proposed frameworks for Big Data applications help to store, analyze and process the data. In this paper, we discuss the challenges of Big Data and we survey existing Big Data frameworks. We also present an experimental evaluation and a comparative study of the most popular Big Data frameworks with several representative batch and iterative workloads. This survey is concluded with a presentation of best practices related to the use of studied frameworks in several application domains such as machine learning, graph processing and real-world applications.
  • Chapter
    Full-text available
    Distributed data processing systems have been widely adopted to robustly scale out computations on massive data sets to many compute nodes in recent years. These systems are also popular choices to scale out the training of machine learning models. However, there is a lack of benchmarks to assess how efficiently data processing systems actually perform at executing machine learning algorithms at scale. For example, the learning algorithms chosen in the corresponding systems papers tend to be those that fit well onto the system’s paradigm rather than state of the art methods. Furthermore, experiments in those papers often neglect important aspects such as addressing all aspects of scalability. In this paper, we share our experience in evaluating novel data processing systems and present a core set of experiments of a benchmark for distributed data processing systems for machine learning workloads, a rationale for their necessity as well as an experimental evaluation.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Worldwide sensor streams are expanding continuously with unbounded velocity in volume, and for this acceleration, there is an adaptation of large stream data processing system from the homogeneous to rack-scale architecture which makes serious concern in the domain of workload optimization, scheduling, and resource management algorithms. Our proposed framework is based on providing architecture independent performance prediction model to enable resource adaptive distributed stream data processing platform. It is comprised of seven pre-defined domain for dynamic data stream metrics including a self-driven model which tries to fit these metrics using ridge regularization regression algorithm. Another significant contribution lies in fully-automated performance prediction model inherited from the state-of-the-art distributed data management system for distributed stream processing systems using Gaussian processes regression that cluster metrics with the help of dimensionality reduction algorithm. We implemented its base on Apache Heron and evaluated with proposed Benchmark Suite comprising of five domain-specific topologies. To assess the proposed methodologies, we forcefully ingest tuple skewness among the benchmarking topologies to set up the ground truth for predictions and found that accuracy of predicting the performance of data streams increased up to 80.62% from 66.36% along with the reduction of error from 37.14 to 16.06%.
  • Conference Paper
    Distributed data flow systems such as Apache Spark or Apache Flink are popular choices for scaling machine learning algorithms in production. Industry applications of large scale machine learning such as click-through rate prediction rely on models trained on billions of data points which are both highly sparse and high-dimensional. Existing Benchmarks attempt to assess the performance of data flow systems such as Apache Flink, Spark or Hadoop with non-representative workloads such as WordCount, Grep or Sort. They only evaluate scalability with respect to data set size and fail to address the crucial requirement of handling high dimensional data. We introduce a representative set of distributed machine learning algorithms suitable for large scale distributed settings which have close resemblance to industry-relevant applications and provide generalizable insights into system performance. We implement mathematically equivalent versions of these algorithms in Apache Flink and Apache Spark, tune relevant system parameters and run a comprehensive set of experiments to assess their scalability with respect to both: data set size and dimensionality of the data. We evaluate the systems for data up to four billion data points and 100 million dimensions. Additionally we compare the performance to single-node implementations to put the scalability results into perspective. Our results indicate that while being able to robustly scale with increasing data set sizes, current state of the art data flow systems are surprisingly inefficient at coping with high dimensional data, which is a crucial requirement for large scale machine learning algorithms. CCS Concepts •Theory of computation → Massively parallel algorithms ; MapReduce algorithms; •Software and its engineering → Data flow architectures; * contributed while at TU Berlin, now at Radicalbit S.r.l.
  • Article
    The rapid growth in data yields challenges to process data efficiently using current high-performance server architectures such as big Xeon cores. Furthermore, physical design constraints, such as power and density, have become the dominant limiting factor for scaling out servers. Low-power embedded cores in servers such as little Atom have emerged as a promising solution to enhance energy-efficiency to address these challenges. Therefore, the question of whether to process the big data applications on big Xeon- or Little Atom-based servers becomes important. In this work, through methodical investigation of power and performance measurements, and comprehensive application-level, system-level, and micro-architectural level analysis, we characterize dominant big data applications on big Xeon- and little Atom-based server architectures. The characterization results across a wide range of real-world big data applications, and various software stacks demonstrate how the choice of big- versus little-core-based server for energy-efficiency is significantly influenced by the size of data, performance constraints, and presence of accelerator. In addition, we analyze processor resource utilization of this important class of applications, such as memory footprints, CPU utilization, and disk bandwidth, to understand their run-time behavior. Furthermore, we perform micro-architecture-level analysis to highlight where improvement is needed in big- and little-core microarchitectures to address their performance bottlenecks.
  • Article
    Real-time data stream processing technologies play an important role in enabling time-critical decision making in many applications. This paper aims at evaluating the performance of platforms that capable of processing streaming data. Candidate technologies include Storm, Samza, and Spark Streaming. To form the recommendation, a prototype pipeline is designed and implemented in each of the platform using data collected from sensors used in monitoring heavy-haul railway systems. Through the testing and evaluation of each candidate platform, using both quantitative and qualitative metrics, the paper describes the findings.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    The Dutch Advanced School for Computing and Imaging has built five generations of a 200-node distributed system over nearly two decades while remaining aligned with the shifting computer science research agenda. The system has supported years of award-winning research, underlining the benefits of investing in a smaller-scale, tailored design.
  • Chapter
    MapReduce and Spark are two very popular open source cluster computing frameworks for large scale data analytics. These frame- works hide the complexity of task parallelism and fault-tolerance, by exposing a simple programming API to users. In this paper, we evaluate the major architectural components in MapReduce and Spark frameworks including: shuffle, execution model, and caching, by using a set of important analytic workloads. To conduct a de- tailed analysis, we developed two profiling tools: (1) We corre- late the task execution plan with the resource utilization for both MapReduce and Spark, and visually present this correlation; (2) We provide a break-down of the task execution time for in-depth analysis. Through detailed experiments, we quantify the perfor- mance differences between MapReduce and Spark. Furthermore, we attribute these performance differences to different components which are architected differently in the two frameworks. We fur- ther expose the source of these performance differences by using a set of micro-benchmark experiments. Overall, our experiments show that Spark is about 2:5×, 5×, and 5× faster than MapReduce, for Word Count, k-means, and PageRank, respectively. The main causes of these speedups are the efficiency of the hash-based aggre- gation component for combine, as well as reduced CPU and disk overheads due to RDD caching in Spark. An exception to this is the Sort workload, for which MapReduce is 2× faster than Spark. We show that MapReduce's execution model is more efficient for shuffling data than Spark, thus making Sort run faster on MapRe-duce.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    The ever growing needs of Big Data applications are demanding challenging capabilities which cannot be handled easily by traditional systems, and thus more and more organizations are adopting High Performance Computing (HPC) to improve scalability and efficiency. Moreover, Big Data frameworks like Hadoop need to be adapted to leverage the available resources in HPC environments. This situation has caused the emergence of several HPC-oriented MapReduce frameworks, which benefit from different technologies traditionally oriented to supercomputing, such as high-performance interconnects or the message-passing interface. This work aims to establish a taxonomy of these frameworks together with a thorough evaluation, which has been carried out in terms of performance and energy efficiency metrics. Furthermore, the adaptability to emerging disks technologies, such as solid state drives, has been assessed. The results have shown that new frameworks like DataMPI can outperform Hadoop, although using IP over InfiniBand also provides significant benefits without code modifications.
  • Article
    Scientific Computing deals with solving complex scientific problems by applying resource-hungry computer simulation and modeling tasks on-top of supercomputers, grids and clusters. Typical scientific computing applications can take months to create and debug when applying de facto parallelization solutions like Message Passing Interface (MPI), in which the bulk of the parallelization details have to be handled by the users. Frameworks based on the MapReduce model, like Hadoop, can greatly simplify creating distributed applications by handling most of the parallelization and fault recovery details automatically for the user. However, Hadoop is strictly designed for simple, embarrassingly parallel algorithms and is not suitable for complex and especially iterative algorithms often used in scientific computing. The goal of this work is to analyze alternative MapReduce frameworks to evaluate how well they suit for solving resource hungry scientific computing problems in comparison to the assumed worst (Hadoop MapReduce) and best case (MPI) implementations for iterative algorithms.