Anty 2013-02-20, 03:10
Sergey Shelukhin 2013-02-20, 22:07
Anty 2013-02-23, 07:16
-Re: Problem In Understanding Compaction Process
Sergey Shelukhin 2013-02-25, 19:16
As for compaction file set update atomicity, I don't think it would
currently be possible.
It would require adding a separate feature; the first thing that comes to
mind is storing the file set in some sort of a meta-file, and updating it
atomically (as far as HDFS file replacement is atomic); then using that to
More importantly, files, as is, can contain multiple versions of the
record, and can also contain delete records that invalidate previous
What is you scenario for analyzing them directly?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Anty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Sergey
> In my use case. I want to directly analyze the underlying HFiles, So i
> can't tolerance duplicate data.
> Can you give me some pointers about how to make this procedure atomic?
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Sergey Shelukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > There should be no duplicate records despite the file not being deleted -
> > between the records with exact same key/version/etc., the newer file
> > be chosen by logical sequence. If that happens to be the same some choice
> > (by time, or name), still one file will be chosen.
> > Eventually, the file will be compacted again and disappear. Granted, by
> > making the move atomic (via some meta/manifest file) we could avoid some
> > overhead in this case at the cost of some added complexity, but it should
> > be rather rare.
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Anty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi: Guys
> > >
> > > I have some problem in understanding the compaction process, Can
> > > someone shed some light on me, much appreciate. Here is the problem:
> > >
> > > Region Server after successfully generate the final compacted
> > > it going through two steps:
> > > 1. move the above compacted file into region's directory
> > > 2. delete replaced files.
> > >
> > > the above two steps are not atomic, if Region Server crash after
> > > step1, and before step2, then there are duplication records! Is this
> > > problem handled in reading process , or there is another mechanism to
> > fix
> > > this?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards
> > > Anty Rao
> > >
> Best Regards
> Anty Rao