Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[SPARK-36900][BUILD][TESTS][FOLLOWUP] Try 5g, not 6g, for test mem limit #34250

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

srowen
Copy link
Member

@srowen srowen commented Oct 12, 2021

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Use 5g of memory for tests, not 6g.

Why are the changes needed?

6g might be flaky, per #34214

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

Existing tests on Java 11

@srowen srowen self-assigned this Oct 12, 2021
@srowen srowen changed the title Try 5g, not 6g, for test mem limit [SPARK-36900][BUILD][TESTS][FOLLOWUP] Try 5g, not 6g, for test mem limit Oct 12, 2021
@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

im gonna just push this in. the tests already passed with both 4g and 6g. To actually test this change, we should monitor other builds.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Merged to master.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

Thank you for keeping trying this optimization, @srowen and @HyukjinKwon .

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Ah .. flakiness still persists. I could hack with calling GC for TPC-DS but seems like other tests are flaky too (e.g., https://github.com/apache/spark/runs/3871942012).

Probably we should find other ways around to 1. reduce memory usage with JDK 17 in tests or 2. add another environment variable (or respecting JAVA_OPTS) in these places we have ..

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Since we don't support JDK 17 yet (and don't run any tests in CI), let me revert this one first since this blocks other PRs for now 😢 .

@srowen
Copy link
Member Author

srowen commented Oct 13, 2021

That's fine, but I'm guessing it's not actually related to this change, but, who knows

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

I will follow up and bring this in back if this wasn't the reason. Thanks @srowen.

@srowen srowen deleted the SPARK-36900.2 branch November 24, 2021 15:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants