Tez task is constituted of all the Inputs on its incoming edges, the Processor configured for the Vertex, and all the Output(s) on it’s outgoing edge.
The number of tasks for a vertex is equal to the parallelism set for that vertex – which is set at DAG construction time, or modified during runtime via user plugins running in the AM.
The diagram shows a single task. The vertex is configured to run Processor1 – has two incoming edges – with the output of the edge specified as Input1 and Input2 respectively, and has a single outgoing edge – with the input to this edge configured as Output1. There will be n such Task instances created per Vertex – depending on the parallelism.
Initialization of a Tez task
The following steps are followed to initialize and run a Tez task.
The Tez framework will first construct instances of the specified Input(s), Processor, Output(s) using a 0 argument constructor.
For a LogicalInput and a LogicalOutput – the Tez framework will set the number of physical connections using the respective setNumPhysicalInputs and setNumPhysicalOutputs methods.
The Input(s), Processor and Output(s) will then be initialized via their respective initialize methods. Configuration and context information is made available to the Is/P/Os via this call. More information on the Context classes is available in the JavaDoc for TezInputContext, TezProcessorContext and TezOutputContext.
The Processor run method will be called with the initialized Inputs and Outputs passed in as arguments (as a Map – connected vertexName to Input/Output).
Once the run method completes, the Input(s), Processor and Output(s) will be closed, and the task is considered to be complete.
Notes for I/P/O writers:
Each Input / Processor / Output must provide a 0 argument constructor. No assumptions should be made about the order in which the Inputs, Processor and Outputs will be initialized, or closed. Assumptions should also not be made about how the Initialization, Close and Processor run will be invoked – i.e. on the same thread or multiple threads.
Common Interfaces to be implemented by Input/Processor/Output
Providing User Information to an Input / Processor / Output
Information specified in the bytePayload associated with an Input/Processor/Output is made available to the respective I/P/O via their context objects.
Users provide this information as a byte array – and can specify any information that may be required at runtime by the I/P/O. This could include configuration, execution plans for Hive/PIG, etc. As an example, the current inputs use a Hadoop Configuration instance for backward compatibility. Hive may choose to send it’s vertex execution plan as part of this field instead of using the distributed cache provided by YARN.
Typically, Inputs and Outputs exist as a pair – the Input knows how to process DataMovementEvent(s) generated by the corresponding Output, and how to interpret the data. This information will generally be encoded into some form of configuration (specified via the userPayload) used by the Output-Input pair, and should match. As an example – the output Key type configured on an Output should match the Input key type on the corresponding Input.
Writing a Tez LogicalOutput
A LogicalOutput can be considered to have two main responsibilities – 1) dealing with the actual data provided by the Processor – partitioning it for the ‘physical’ edges, serializing it etc, and 2) Providing information to Tez (in effect the subsequent Input) on where this data is available.
Processing the Data
Depending on the connection pattern being used – an Output will generate data to a single ‘physical’ edge or multiple ‘physical’ edges. A LogicalOutput is responsible for partitioning the data into these ‘physical’ edges.
It would typically work in conjunction with the configured downstream Input to write data in a specific data format understood by the downstream Input. This includes a serialization mechanism, compression etc.
As an example: OnFileSortedOutput which is the Output used for a MapReduce shuffle makes use of a Partitioner to partition the data into n partitions (‘physical’ edges) – where n corresponds to the number of downstream tasks. It also sorts the data per partition, and writes it out as Key-Value pairs using Hadoop serialization which is understood by the downstream Input (ShuffledMergedInput in this case).
Providing information on how the data is to be retrieved
A LogicalOutput needs to send out information on how data is to be retrieved by the corresponding downstream Input defined on an edge. This is done by generating DataMovementEvent(s). These events are routed by the AM, based on the connection pattern, to the relevant LogicalInputs.
These events can be sent at anytime by using the TezOutputContext with which the Output was initialized. Alternately, they can be returned as part of the initialize() or close() calls. More on DataMovementEvent(s) further down.
Continuing with the OnFileSortedOutput example: This will generate one event per partition – the sourceIndex for each of these events will be the partition number. This particular Output makes use of the MapReduce ShuffleHandler, which requires downstream Inputs to pull data over HTTP. The payload for these events contains the host name and port for the http server, as well as an identifier which uniquely identifies the specific task and Input instance running this output.
In case of OnFileSortedOutput – these events are generated during the close() call.
Specific interface for a LogicalOutput
setNumPhysicalOutputs(int) – This is where a Logical Output is informed about the number of physical outgoing edges for the output. Writer getWriter() – An implementation of the Writer interface, which can be used by a Processor to write to this Output.
Writing a Tez LogicalInput
The main responsibilities of a Logical Input are 1) Obtaining the actual data over the ‘physical’ edges, and 2) Interpreting the data, and providing a single ‘Logical’ view of this data to the Processor.
Obtaining the Data
A LogicalInput will receive DataMovementEvent(s) generated by the corresponding LogicalOutput which generated them. It needs to interpret these events to get hold of the data. The number of DataMovementEvent(s) a LogicalInput receives is typically equal to the number of physical edges it is configured with, and is used as a termination condition.
As an example: ShuffledMergedInput (which is the Input on the OnFileSortedOutput-ShuffledMergedInput O-I edge) would fetch data from the ShuffleHandler by interpretting the host, port and identifier from the DataMovementEvent(s) it receives.
Providing a view of the data to the Processor
A LogicalInput will typically expose the data to the Processor via a Reader interface. This would involve interpreting the data, manipulating it if required – decompression, ser-de etc.
Continuing with the ShuffledMergedInput example: This input fetches all the data – one chunk per source task and partition – each of which is sorted. It then proceeds to merge the sorted chunks and makes the data available to the Processor only after this step – via a KeyValues reader implementation.
Specific interface for a LogicalInput
setNumPhysicalInputs(int) – This is where a LogicalInput is informed about the number of physical incoming edges. Reader getReader() – An implementation of the Reader interface, which can be used by a Processor to read from this Input
Writing a Tez LogicalIOProcessor
A logical processor receives configured LogicalInput(s) and LogicalOutput(s). It is responsible for reading source data from the Input(s), processing it, and writing data out to the configured Output(s).
A processor is aware of which vertex (vertex-name) a specific Input is from. Similarly, it is aware of the output vertex (via the vertex-name) associated with a specific Output. It would typically validate the Input and Output types, process the Inputs based on the source vertex and generate output for the various destination vertices.
As an example: The MapProcessor validates that it is configured with only a single Input of type MRInput – since that is the only input it knows how to work with. It also validates the Output to be an OnFileSortedOutput or a MROutput. It then proceeds to obtain a KeyValue reader from the MRInput, and KeyValueWriter from the OnFileSortedOutput or MROutput. The KeyvalueReader instance is used to walk all they keys in the input – on which the user configured map function is called, with a MapReduce output collector backed by the KeyValue writer instance.
Specific interface for a LogicalIOProcessor
run(Map<String, LogicalInput> inputs, Map<String, LogicalOutput> outputs) – This is where a processor should implement it’s compute logic. It receives initialized Input(s) and Output(s) along with the vertex names to which thse Input(s) and Output(s) are connected.
A DataMovementEvent is used to communicate between Outputs and Inputs to specify location information. A byte payload field is available for this – the contents of which should be understood by the communicating Outputs and Inputs. This byte payload could be interpreted by user-plugins running within the AM to modify the DAG (Auto reduce-parallelism as an example).
DataMovementEvent(s) are typically generated per physical edge between the Output and Input. The event generator needs to set the sourceIndex on the event being generated – and this matches the physical Output/Input that generated the event. Based on the ConnectionPattern specified for the DAG – Tez sets the targetIndex, so that the event receiver knows which physical Input/Output the event is meant for. An example of data movement events generated by a ScatterGather connection pattern (Shuffle) follows, with values specified for the source and target Index.
In this case the Input has 3 tasks, and the output has 2 tasks. Each input generates 1 partition (physical output) for the downstream tasks, and each downstream task consumes the same partition from each of the upstream tasks.
Vertex1, Task1 will generate two DataMovementEvents – E1 and E2. E1, sourceIndex = 0 (since it is generated by the 1st physical output) E2, sourceIndex = 1 (since it is generated by the 2nd physical output)
Similarly Vertex1, Task2 and Task3 will generate two data movement events each. E3 and E5, sourceIndex=0 E4 and E6, sourceIndex=1
Based on the ScatterGather ConnectionPattern, the AM will rout the events to respective tasks. E1, E3, E5 with sourceIndex 1 will be sent to Vertex2, Task1 E2, E4, E6 with sourceIndex 2 will be sent to Vertex2, Task2
The destination will see the following targetIndex (based on the physical edges between the tasks (arrows)) E1, targetIndex=0 – first physical input to V2, Task1 E3, targetIndex=1 – second physical input to V2, Task1 E5, targetIndex=5 – third physical input to V2, Task1 Similarly, E2, E4, E6 will have target indices 0,1 and 2 respectively – i.e. first, second and third physical input to V2 Task2.
DataMovement events generated by an Input are routed to the corresponding upstream Input defined on the edge. Similarly data movement events generated by an Ouput are routed to the corresponding downstream Input defined on the edge.
If the Output is one of the Leaf Outputs for a DAG – it will typically not generate any events.
Reporting errors from an Input/Processor/Output Fatal Errors – fatal errors can be reported to Tez via the fatalError method available on the context instances, with which the I/P/O was initialized. Alternately, throwing an Exception from the initialize, close or run methods are considered to be fatal. Fatal errors cause the current running task to be killed. Actionable Non Fatal Errors – Inputs can report the failure to obtain data from a specific Physical connection by sending an InputReaderErrorEventvia the InputContext. Depending on the Edge configuration, this may trigger a retry of the previous stage task which generated this data. Errors reported to an Input If the AM determines that data generated by a previous task is no longer available, Inputs which require this data are informed via an InputFailedEvent. The sourceIndex, targetIndex and attemptNumber information on this event would correspond to the DataMovementEvent event with the same values. The Input will typically handle this event by not attempting to obtain data based on the specific DataMovement event, and would wait for an updated DataMovementEvent for the same data.
Notes on Reader and Writer Tez does not enforce any interface on the Reader and Writer to stay data format agnostic. Specific Writers and Readers can be implemented for Key-Value, Record or other data formats. A KeyValue and KeyValues Reader/Writer interface and implementation, based on Hadoop serialization, is used by the Shuffle Input/Output provided by the Tez Runtime library.
 Bikas Saha, Writing a Tez Input/Processor/Output, Hortonworks, October 2nd, 2013.
 Apache tez. http://incubator.apache.org/projects/tez.html.
 Netty project. http://netty.io.
 Storm. http://storm-project.net/.
 H.Ballani, P.Costa, T.Karagiannis, and A.I.Rowstron. Towards predictable datacenter networks. In SIGCOMM, volume 11, pages 242–253, 2011.
 F.P.Brooks,Jr. The mythical man-month (anniversary ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1995.
 N. Capit, G. Da Costa, Y. Georgiou, G. Huard, C. Martin, G. Mounie, P. Neyron, and O. Richard. A batch scheduler with high level components. In Cluster Computing and the Grid, 2005. CC-Grid 2005. IEEE International Symposium on, volume 2, pages 776–783 Vol. 2, 2005.
 R. Chaiken, B. Jenkins, P.-A. Larson, B. Ramsey, D. Shakib, S. Weaver, and J. Zhou. Scope: easy and efficient parallel processing of massive data sets. Proc. VLDB Endow., 1(2):1265–1276, Aug. 2008.
 M. Chowdhury, M. Zaharia, J. Ma, M. I. Jordan, and I. Stoica. Managing data transfers in computer clusters with orchestra. SIGCOMM- Computer Communication Review, 41(4):98, 2011.
 B.-G. Chun, T. Condie, C. Curino, R. Ramakrishnan, R. Sears, and M. Weimer. Reef: Retainable evaluator execution framework. In VLDB 2013, Demo, 2013.
 B. F. Cooper, E. Baldeschwieler, R. Fonseca, J. J. Kistler, P. Narayan, C. Neerdaels, T. Negrin, R. Ramakrishnan, A. Silberstein, U. Srivastava, et al. Building a cloud for Yahoo! IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 32(1):36–43, 2009.
 J. Dean and S. Ghemawat. MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun. ACM, 51(1):107–113, Jan. 2008.
 W. Emeneker, D. Jackson, J. Butikofer, and D. Stanzione. Dynamic virtual clustering with xen and moab. In G. Min, B. Martino, L. Yang, M. Guo, and G. Rnger, editors, Frontiers of High Performance Computing and Networking, ISPA 2006 Workshops, volume 4331 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 440–451. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.
 Facebook Engineering Team. Under the Hood: Scheduling MapReduce jobs more efficiently with Corona. http://on.fb.me/TxUsYN, 2012.
 D. Gottfrid. Self-service prorated super-computing fun. http://open. blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/self-service-prorated-super-computing-fun, 2007.
 T. Graves. GraySort and MinuteSort at Yahoo on Hadoop 0.23. http://sortbenchmark. org/Yahoo2013Sort.pdf, 2013.
 B. Hindman, A. Konwinski, M. Zaharia, A. Ghodsi, A. D. Joseph, R. Katz, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. Mesos: a platform for fine-grained resource sharing in the data center. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX conference on Networked systems design and implementation, NSDI’11, pages 22–22, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2011. USENIX Association.
 M. Isard, M. Budiu, Y. Yu, A. Birrell, and D. Fetterly. Dryad: distributed data-parallel programs from sequential building blocks. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems 2007, EuroSys ’07, pages 59–72, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
 M. Islam, A. K. Huang, M. Battisha, M. Chiang, S. Srinivasan, C. Peters, A. Neumann, and A. Abdelnur. Oozie: towards a scalable workflow management system for hadoop. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGMOD Workshop on Scalable Workflow Execution Engines and Technologies, page 4. ACM, 2012.
 D. B. Jackson, Q. Snell, and M. J. Clement. Core algorithms of the maui scheduler. In Revised Papers from the 7th International Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, JSSPP ’01, pages 87–102, London, UK, UK, 2001. Springer-Verlag.
 S. Loughran, D. Das, and E. Baldeschwieler. Introducing Hoya – HBase on YARN. http://hortonworks.com/blog/introducing-hoya-hbase-on-yarn/, 2013.
 G. Malewicz, M. H. Austern, A. J. Bik, J. C. Dehnert, I. Horn, N. Leiser, and G. Czajkowski. Pregel: a system for large-scale graph processing. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data, SIGMOD ’10, pages 135–146, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
 R. O. Nambiar and M. Poess. The making of tpcds. In Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on Very large data bases, VLDB ’06, pages 1049–1058. VLDB Endowment, 2006.
 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 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, SIGMOD ’08, pages 1099–1110, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
 O.O’Malley. Hadoop: The Definitive Guide, chapter Hadoop at Yahoo!, pages 11–12. O’Reilly Media, 2012.
 M. Schwarzkopf, A. Konwinski, M. Abd-El-Malek, and J. Wilkes. Omega: flexible, scalable schedulers for large compute clusters. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys ’13, pages 351–364, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
 K.Shvachko, H.Kuang, S.Radia, and R.Chansler. The Hadoop Distributed File System. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 26th Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST), MSST ’10, pages 1–10, Washington, DC, USA, 2010. IEEE Computer Society.
 T.-W. N. Sze. The two quadrillionth bit of π is 0! http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/hadoop/two-quadrillionth-bit-0-467.html.
 D. Thain, T. Tannenbaum, and M. Livny. Distributed computing in practice: the Condor experience. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 17(2-4):323–356, 2005.
 A. Thusoo, J. S. Sarma, N. Jain, Z. Shao, P. Chakka, N. Z. 0002, S. Anthony, H. Liu, and R. Murthy. Hive - a petabyte scale data warehouse using Hadoop. In F. Li, M. M. Moro, S. Ghandeharizadeh, J. R. Haritsa, G. Weikum, M. J. Carey, F. Casati, E. Y. Chang, I. Manolescu, S. Mehrotra, U. Dayal, and V. J. Tsotras, editors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2010, March 1-6, 2010, Long Beach, California, USA, pages 996–1005. IEEE, 2010.
 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 the 8th USENIX conference on Operating systems design and implementation, OSDI’08, pages 1–14, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008. USENIX Association.
 M. Zaharia, M. Chowdhury, M. J. Franklin, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. Spark: cluster computing with working sets. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX conference on Hot topics in cloud computing, HotCloud’10, pages 10–10, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2010. USENIX Association.
 Vinod Kumar Vavilapali, et. al, Apache Hadoop YARN – Yet Another Resource Negotiator, SoCC’13, 1-3 Oct. 2013, Santa Clara, California, USA.