Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HDFS, mail # dev - [Discuss] Merge federation branch HDFS-1052 into trunk


+
Suresh Srinivas 2011-04-22, 16:48
+
Dhruba Borthakur 2011-04-23, 08:08
+
Doug Cutting 2011-04-25, 21:36
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-26, 17:29
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-26, 23:06
+
Doug Cutting 2011-04-27, 04:43
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-04-27, 05:26
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-27, 06:34
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-27, 06:55
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-27, 17:02
+
Tsz Wo \ 2011-04-27, 17:08
+
Devaraj Das 2011-04-27, 17:08
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-04-27, 17:41
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-27, 21:36
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-04-28, 05:18
+
Hairong 2011-04-27, 17:46
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [Discuss] Merge federation branch HDFS-1052 into trunk
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-04-28, 04:56
Yes, I can talk about append as an example.
Some differences with federation project are:
- append had a comprehensive test plan document, which was designed an
executed;
- append was independently evaluated by HBase guys;
- it introduced new benchmark for append;
- We ran both DFSIO and NNThroughput. DFSIO was executed on a relatively
small cluster. I couldn't find where I posted the results, my bad. But you
may be able to find these tasks in our scrum records.

--Konstantin
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:55 PM, suresh srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Konstantin,
>
> Could you provide me link to how this was done on a big feature, like say
> append and how benchmark info was captured? I am planning to run dfsio
> tests, btw.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM, suresh srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > Konstantin,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Suresh, Sanjay.
> >>
> >> 1. I asked for benchmarks many times over the course of different
> >> discussions on the topic.
> >> I don't see any numbers attached to jira, and I was getting the same
> >> response,
> >> Doug just got from you, guys: which is "why would the performance be
> >> worse".
> >> And this is not an argument for me.
> >>
> >
> > We had done testing earlier and had found that performance had not
> > degraded. We are waiting for out performance team to publish the official
> > numbers to post it to the jira. Unfortunately they are busy qualifying
> 2xx
> > releases currently. I will get the perf numbers and post them.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 2. I assume that merging requires a vote. I am sure people who know
> bylaws
> >> better than I do will correct me if it is not true.
> >> Did I miss the vote?
> >>
> >
> >
> > As regards to voting, since I was not sure about the procedure, I had
> > consulted Owen about it. He had indicated that voting is not necessary.
> If
> > the right procedure is to call for voting, I will do so. Owen any
> comments?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It feels like you are rushing this and are not doing what you would
> expect
> >> others to
> >> do in the same position, and what has been done in the past for such
> large
> >> projects.
> >>
> >
> > I am not trying to rush here and not follow the procedure required. I am
> > not sure about what the procedure is. Any pointers to it is appreciated.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --Konstantin
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Suresh, Sanjay,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you very much for addressing my questions.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> > Doug
> >> >
> >> > On 04/26/2011 10:29 AM, suresh srinivas wrote:
> >> > > Doug,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >> 1. Can you please describe the significant advantages this approach
> >> has
> >> > >> over a symlink-based approach?
> >> > >
> >> > > Federation is complementary with symlink approach. You could choose
> to
> >> > > provide integrated namespace using symlinks. However, client side
> >> mount
> >> > > tables seems a better approach for many reasons:
> >> > > # Unlike symbolic links, client side mount tables can choose to go
> to
> >> > right
> >> > > namenode based on configuration. This avoids unnecessary RPCs to the
> >> > > namenodes to discover the targer of symlink.
> >> > > # The unavailability of a namenode where a symbolic link is
> configured
> >> > does
> >> > > not affect reaching the symlink target.
> >> > > # Symbolic links need not be configured on every namenode in the
> >> cluster
> >> > and
> >> > > future changes to symlinks need not be propagated to multiple
> >> namenodes.
> >> > In
> >> > > client side mount tables, this information is in a central
> >> configuration.
> >> > >
> >> > > If a deployment still wants to use symbolic link, federation does
> not
> >> > > preclude it.
> >> > >
> >> > >> It seems to me that one could run multiple namenodes on separate
> >> boxes
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-04-28, 13:36
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-28, 18:02
+
Owen OMalley 2011-04-27, 20:53
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-27, 21:44
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-04-28, 05:12
+
Owen OMalley 2011-04-28, 20:33
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-28, 22:12
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-04-29, 06:30
+
Todd Lipcon 2011-05-02, 21:44
+
suresh srinivas 2011-05-03, 02:17
+
Sanjay Radia 2011-04-27, 00:26
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-04-27, 00:59
+
Dhruba Borthakur 2011-04-27, 04:27
+
Tsz Wo \ 2011-04-27, 05:16
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2011-04-27, 05:36
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2011-04-27, 05:40
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-27, 06:28
+
Sanjay Radia 2011-04-27, 14:03
+
Eli Collins 2011-04-27, 21:36
+
suresh srinivas 2011-04-28, 00:22