N Keywal
2012-07-12, 21:20
Todd Lipcon
2012-07-12, 21:24
N Keywal
2012-07-12, 22:16
N Keywal
2012-07-13, 07:53
N Keywal
2012-07-13, 13:27
Andrew Purtell
2012-07-13, 16:31
Stack
2012-07-18, 09:36
lars hofhansl
2012-07-13, 17:11
Ted Yu
2012-07-13, 17:18
N Keywal
2012-07-13, 17:46
N Keywal
2012-07-16, 12:00
N Keywal
2012-07-16, 17:08
Stack
2012-07-18, 10:00
Ted Yu
2012-07-13, 17:02
Stack
2012-07-17, 15:41
N Keywal
2012-07-17, 17:14
Andrew Purtell
2012-07-17, 19:51
Stack
2012-07-18, 09:26
-
hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-12, 21:20
Hi,
I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
logs).
By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
operations.
And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
winner.
I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
impacts. We have the calculated values:
heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
At least on 1.0.3, there is no shutdown hook to tell the NN to
consider this DN as dead, for example on a software crash.
So before the 10:30 minutes, the DN is considered as fully available
by the NN. After this delay, HDFS is likely to start replicating the
blocks contained in the dead node to get back to the right number of
replica. As a consequence, if we're too aggressive we will have a side
effect here, adding workload to an already damaged cluster. According
to Stack: "even with this 10 minutes wait, the issue was met in real
production case in the past, and the latency increased badly". May be
there is some tuning to do here, but going under these 10 minutes does
not seem to be an easy path.
For the clients, they don't fully rely on the NN feedback, and they
keep, per stream, a dead node list. So for a single file, a given
client will do the error once, but if there are multiple files it will
go back to the wrong DN. The settings are:
connect/read: (3s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 60s ("dfs.socket.timeout")
write: (5s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 480s
("dfs.datanode.socket.write.timeout")
That will set a 69s timeout to get a "connect" error with the default config.
I also had a look at larger failure scenarios, when we're loosing a
20% of a cluster. The smaller the cluster is the easier it is to get
there. With the distributed log split, we're actually on a better
shape from an hdfs point of view: the master could have error writing
the files, because it could bet a dead DN 3 times in a row. If the
split is done by the RS, this issue disappears. We will however get a
lot of errors between the nodes.
Finally, I had a look at the lease stuff Lease: write access lock to a
file, no other client can write to the file. But another client can
read it. Soft lease limit: another client can preempt the lease.
Configurable.
Default: 1 minute.
Hard lease limit: hdfs closes the file and free the resources on
behalf of the initial writer. Default: 60 minutes.
=> This should not impact HBase, as it does not prevent the recovery
process to read the WAL or to write new files. We just need writes to
be immediately available to readers, and it's possible thanks to
HDFS-200. So if a RS dies we should have no waits even if the lease
was not freed. This seems to be confirmed by tests.
=> It's interesting to note that this setting is much more aggressive
than the one to declare a DN dead (1 minute vs. 10 minutes). Or, in
HBase, than the default ZK timeout (3 minutes).
=> This said, HDFS states this: "When reading a file open for writing,
the length of the last block still being written is unknown
to the NameNode. In this case, the client asks one of the replicas for
the latest length before starting to read its content.". This leads to
an extra call to get the file length on the recovery (likely with the
ipc.Client), and we may once again go to the wrong dead DN. In this
case we have an extra socket timeout to consider.
On paper, it would be great to set "dfs.socket.timeout" to a minimal
value during a log split, as we know we will get a dead DN 33% of the
time. It may be more complicated in real life as the connections are
shared per process. And we could still have the issue with the
ipc.Client.
As a conclusion, I think it could be interesting to have a third
status for DN in HDFS: between live and dead as today, we could have
"sick". We would have:
1) Dead, known as such => As today: Start to replicate the blocks to
other nodes. You enter this state after 10 minutes. We could even wait
more.
2) Likely to be dead: don't propose it for write blocks, put it with a
lower priority for read blocks. We would enter this state in two
conditions:
2.1) No heartbeat for 30 seconds (configurable of course). As there
is an existing heartbeat of 3 seconds, we could even be more
aggressive here.
2.2) We could have a shutdown hook in hdfs such as when a DN dies
'properly' it says to the NN, and the NN can put it in this 'half dead
state'.
=> In all cases, the node stays in the second state until the 10.30
timeout is reached or until a heartbeat is received.
3) Live.
For HBase it would make life much simpler I think:
- no 69s timeout on mttr path
- less connection to dead nodes leading to ressources held all other
the place finishing by a timeout...
- and there is already a very aggressive 3s heartbeat, so we would
not add any workload.
Thougths?
Nicolas
I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
logs).
By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
operations.
And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
winner.
I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
impacts. We have the calculated values:
heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
At least on 1.0.3, there is no shutdown hook to tell the NN to
consider this DN as dead, for example on a software crash.
So before the 10:30 minutes, the DN is considered as fully available
by the NN. After this delay, HDFS is likely to start replicating the
blocks contained in the dead node to get back to the right number of
replica. As a consequence, if we're too aggressive we will have a side
effect here, adding workload to an already damaged cluster. According
to Stack: "even with this 10 minutes wait, the issue was met in real
production case in the past, and the latency increased badly". May be
there is some tuning to do here, but going under these 10 minutes does
not seem to be an easy path.
For the clients, they don't fully rely on the NN feedback, and they
keep, per stream, a dead node list. So for a single file, a given
client will do the error once, but if there are multiple files it will
go back to the wrong DN. The settings are:
connect/read: (3s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 60s ("dfs.socket.timeout")
write: (5s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 480s
("dfs.datanode.socket.write.timeout")
That will set a 69s timeout to get a "connect" error with the default config.
I also had a look at larger failure scenarios, when we're loosing a
20% of a cluster. The smaller the cluster is the easier it is to get
there. With the distributed log split, we're actually on a better
shape from an hdfs point of view: the master could have error writing
the files, because it could bet a dead DN 3 times in a row. If the
split is done by the RS, this issue disappears. We will however get a
lot of errors between the nodes.
Finally, I had a look at the lease stuff Lease: write access lock to a
file, no other client can write to the file. But another client can
read it. Soft lease limit: another client can preempt the lease.
Configurable.
Default: 1 minute.
Hard lease limit: hdfs closes the file and free the resources on
behalf of the initial writer. Default: 60 minutes.
=> This should not impact HBase, as it does not prevent the recovery
process to read the WAL or to write new files. We just need writes to
be immediately available to readers, and it's possible thanks to
HDFS-200. So if a RS dies we should have no waits even if the lease
was not freed. This seems to be confirmed by tests.
=> It's interesting to note that this setting is much more aggressive
than the one to declare a DN dead (1 minute vs. 10 minutes). Or, in
HBase, than the default ZK timeout (3 minutes).
=> This said, HDFS states this: "When reading a file open for writing,
the length of the last block still being written is unknown
to the NameNode. In this case, the client asks one of the replicas for
the latest length before starting to read its content.". This leads to
an extra call to get the file length on the recovery (likely with the
ipc.Client), and we may once again go to the wrong dead DN. In this
case we have an extra socket timeout to consider.
On paper, it would be great to set "dfs.socket.timeout" to a minimal
value during a log split, as we know we will get a dead DN 33% of the
time. It may be more complicated in real life as the connections are
shared per process. And we could still have the issue with the
ipc.Client.
As a conclusion, I think it could be interesting to have a third
status for DN in HDFS: between live and dead as today, we could have
"sick". We would have:
1) Dead, known as such => As today: Start to replicate the blocks to
other nodes. You enter this state after 10 minutes. We could even wait
more.
2) Likely to be dead: don't propose it for write blocks, put it with a
lower priority for read blocks. We would enter this state in two
conditions:
2.1) No heartbeat for 30 seconds (configurable of course). As there
is an existing heartbeat of 3 seconds, we could even be more
aggressive here.
2.2) We could have a shutdown hook in hdfs such as when a DN dies
'properly' it says to the NN, and the NN can put it in this 'half dead
state'.
=> In all cases, the node stays in the second state until the 10.30
timeout is reached or until a heartbeat is received.
3) Live.
For HBase it would make life much simpler I think:
- no 69s timeout on mttr path
- less connection to dead nodes leading to ressources held all other
the place finishing by a timeout...
- and there is already a very aggressive 3s heartbeat, so we would
not add any workload.
Thougths?
Nicolas
+
N Keywal 2012-07-12, 21:20
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsTodd Lipcon 2012-07-12, 21:24
Hey Nicolas,
Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
side in a few ways:
1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
restart.
2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
(slow) node.
Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
-Todd
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
> logs).
>
> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
> operations.
>
> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
> so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
> lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
> other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
> block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
> the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
> reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
> winner.
>
>
> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
> impacts. We have the calculated values:
> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
> heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
> heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
>
> At least on 1.0.3, there is no shutdown hook to tell the NN to
> consider this DN as dead, for example on a software crash.
>
> So before the 10:30 minutes, the DN is considered as fully available
> by the NN. After this delay, HDFS is likely to start replicating the
> blocks contained in the dead node to get back to the right number of
> replica. As a consequence, if we're too aggressive we will have a side
> effect here, adding workload to an already damaged cluster. According
> to Stack: "even with this 10 minutes wait, the issue was met in real
> production case in the past, and the latency increased badly". May be
> there is some tuning to do here, but going under these 10 minutes does
> not seem to be an easy path.
>
> For the clients, they don't fully rely on the NN feedback, and they
> keep, per stream, a dead node list. So for a single file, a given
> client will do the error once, but if there are multiple files it will
> go back to the wrong DN. The settings are:
>
> connect/read: (3s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 60s ("dfs.socket.timeout")
> write: (5s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 480s
> ("dfs.datanode.socket.write.timeout")
>
> That will set a 69s timeout to get a "connect" error with the default config.
>
> I also had a look at larger failure scenarios, when we're loosing a
> 20% of a cluster. The smaller the cluster is the easier it is to get
> there. With the distributed log split, we're actually on a better
> shape from an hdfs point of view: the master could have error writing
> the files, because it could bet a dead DN 3 times in a row. If the
> split is done by the RS, this issue disappears. We will however get a
> lot of errors between the nodes.
>
> Finally, I had a look at the lease stuff Lease: write access lock to a
> file, no other client can write to the file. But another client can
> read it. Soft lease limit: another client can preempt the lease.
> Configurable.
> Default
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
side in a few ways:
1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
restart.
2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
(slow) node.
Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
-Todd
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
> logs).
>
> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
> operations.
>
> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
> so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
> lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
> other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
> block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
> the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
> reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
> winner.
>
>
> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
> impacts. We have the calculated values:
> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
> heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
> heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
>
> At least on 1.0.3, there is no shutdown hook to tell the NN to
> consider this DN as dead, for example on a software crash.
>
> So before the 10:30 minutes, the DN is considered as fully available
> by the NN. After this delay, HDFS is likely to start replicating the
> blocks contained in the dead node to get back to the right number of
> replica. As a consequence, if we're too aggressive we will have a side
> effect here, adding workload to an already damaged cluster. According
> to Stack: "even with this 10 minutes wait, the issue was met in real
> production case in the past, and the latency increased badly". May be
> there is some tuning to do here, but going under these 10 minutes does
> not seem to be an easy path.
>
> For the clients, they don't fully rely on the NN feedback, and they
> keep, per stream, a dead node list. So for a single file, a given
> client will do the error once, but if there are multiple files it will
> go back to the wrong DN. The settings are:
>
> connect/read: (3s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 60s ("dfs.socket.timeout")
> write: (5s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 480s
> ("dfs.datanode.socket.write.timeout")
>
> That will set a 69s timeout to get a "connect" error with the default config.
>
> I also had a look at larger failure scenarios, when we're loosing a
> 20% of a cluster. The smaller the cluster is the easier it is to get
> there. With the distributed log split, we're actually on a better
> shape from an hdfs point of view: the master could have error writing
> the files, because it could bet a dead DN 3 times in a row. If the
> split is done by the RS, this issue disappears. We will however get a
> lot of errors between the nodes.
>
> Finally, I had a look at the lease stuff Lease: write access lock to a
> file, no other client can write to the file. But another client can
> read it. Soft lease limit: another client can preempt the lease.
> Configurable.
> Default
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-07-12, 21:24
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-12, 22:16
Hi Todd,
Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
without any interface change...
Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
for specific functions like recovery.
- we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
- the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
crash, but for large failure it could.
- we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
if the change would not be visible to all functions.
What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
(software region server crash), and seems a little like a
workaround...
In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
who's dead.
Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
fail fast on dn errors for this read...
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Nicolas,
>
> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
> side in a few ways:
>
> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
> restart.
> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
> (slow) node.
>
> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>
> -Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
>> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
>> logs).
>>
>> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
>> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
>> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
>> operations.
>>
>> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
>> so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
>> lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
>> other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
>> block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
>> the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
>> reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
>> winner.
>>
>>
>> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
>> impacts. We have the calculated values:
>> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
>> heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
>> heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
>>
>> At least on 1.0.3, there is no shutdown hook to tell the NN to
>> consider this DN as dead, for example on a software crash.
>>
>> So before the 10:30 minutes, the DN is considered as fully available
>> by the NN. After this delay, HDFS is likely to start replicating the
>> blocks contained in the dead node to get back to the right number of
Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
without any interface change...
Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
for specific functions like recovery.
- we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
- the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
crash, but for large failure it could.
- we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
if the change would not be visible to all functions.
What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
(software region server crash), and seems a little like a
workaround...
In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
who's dead.
Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
fail fast on dn errors for this read...
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Nicolas,
>
> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
> side in a few ways:
>
> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
> restart.
> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
> (slow) node.
>
> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>
> -Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
>> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
>> logs).
>>
>> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
>> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
>> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
>> operations.
>>
>> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
>> so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
>> lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
>> other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
>> block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
>> the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
>> reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
>> winner.
>>
>>
>> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
>> impacts. We have the calculated values:
>> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
>> heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
>> heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
>>
>> At least on 1.0.3, there is no shutdown hook to tell the NN to
>> consider this DN as dead, for example on a software crash.
>>
>> So before the 10:30 minutes, the DN is considered as fully available
>> by the NN. After this delay, HDFS is likely to start replicating the
>> blocks contained in the dead node to get back to the right number of
+
N Keywal 2012-07-12, 22:16
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-13, 07:53
Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
> without any interface change...
>
> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
> for specific functions like recovery.
> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
> crash, but for large failure it could.
> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>
> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>
> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
> workaround...
>
> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
> who's dead.
> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hey Nicolas,
>>
>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
>> side in a few ways:
>>
>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
>> restart.
>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
>> (slow) node.
>>
>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
>>> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
>>> logs).
>>>
>>> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
>>> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
>>> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
>>> operations.
>>>
>>> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
>>> so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
>>> lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
>>> other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
>>> block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
>>> the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
>>> reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
>>> winner.
>>>
>>>
>>> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
>>> impacts. We have the calculated values:
>>> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
> without any interface change...
>
> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
> for specific functions like recovery.
> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
> crash, but for large failure it could.
> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>
> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>
> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
> workaround...
>
> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
> who's dead.
> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hey Nicolas,
>>
>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
>> side in a few ways:
>>
>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
>> restart.
>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
>> (slow) node.
>>
>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
>>> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
>>> logs).
>>>
>>> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
>>> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
>>> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
>>> operations.
>>>
>>> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
>>> so we will read the WAL & write new log files. And with the RS, we
>>> lost the replica of the WAL that was with the DN of the dead box. In
>>> other words, 33% of the DN we need are dead. So, to read the WAL, per
>>> block to read and per reader, we've got one chance out of 3 to go to
>>> the dead DN, and to get a connect or read timeout issue. With a
>>> reasonnable cluster and a distributed log split, we will have a sure
>>> winner.
>>>
>>>
>>> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
>>> impacts. We have the calculated values:
>>> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
+
N Keywal 2012-07-13, 07:53
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-13, 13:27
I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
- it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
- i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
- as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Todd,
>>
>> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
>> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
>> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
>> without any interface change...
>>
>> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
>> for specific functions like recovery.
>> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
>> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
>> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
>> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
>> crash, but for large failure it could.
>> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
>> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>>
>> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
>> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>>
>> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
>> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
>> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
>> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
>> workaround...
>>
>> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
>> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
>> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
>> who's dead.
>> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
>> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hey Nicolas,
>>>
>>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
>>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
>>> side in a few ways:
>>>
>>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
>>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
>>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
>>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
>>> restart.
>>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
>>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
>>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
>>> (slow) node.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>>>
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
>>>> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
>>>> logs).
>>>>
>>>> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
>>>> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
>>>> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
- it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
- i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
- as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Todd,
>>
>> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
>> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
>> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
>> without any interface change...
>>
>> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
>> for specific functions like recovery.
>> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
>> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
>> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
>> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
>> crash, but for large failure it could.
>> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
>> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>>
>> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
>> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>>
>> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
>> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
>> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
>> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
>> workaround...
>>
>> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
>> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
>> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
>> who's dead.
>> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
>> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hey Nicolas,
>>>
>>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
>>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
>>> side in a few ways:
>>>
>>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
>>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
>>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
>>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
>>> restart.
>>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
>>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
>>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
>>> (slow) node.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>>>
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
>>>> recovery, hence reading the logs files and writing new ones (splitting
>>>> logs).
>>>>
>>>> By default, HDFS considers a DN as dead when there is no heartbeat for
>>>> 10:30 minutes. Until this point, the NaneNode will consider it as
>>>> perfectly valid and it will get involved in all read & write
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> And, as we lost a RegionServer, the recovery process will take place,
+
N Keywal 2012-07-13, 13:27
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsAndrew Purtell 2012-07-13, 16:31
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:27 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
"branch-1" is the root of Hadoop 1, the next release should be
branched from there.
Changing the block placement policy for HBase WALs to avoid the local
machine is interesting. Those who could make use of this approach
would be those who:
- Control their NameNode, it's classpath, and it's configuration
- Would make the risk assessment that it is acceptable to plug
something in there from the HBase project
- Are not using another block placement policy, either the one
from HDFS-RAID or their own
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
Hein (via Tom White)
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
"branch-1" is the root of Hadoop 1, the next release should be
branched from there.
Changing the block placement policy for HBase WALs to avoid the local
machine is interesting. Those who could make use of this approach
would be those who:
- Control their NameNode, it's classpath, and it's configuration
- Would make the risk assessment that it is acceptable to plug
something in there from the HBase project
- Are not using another block placement policy, either the one
from HDFS-RAID or their own
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
Hein (via Tom White)
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-07-13, 16:31
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsStack 2012-07-18, 09:36
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Changing the block placement policy for HBase WALs to avoid the local
> machine is interesting. Those who could make use of this approach
> would be those who:
>
> - Control their NameNode, it's classpath, and it's configuration
>
> - Would make the risk assessment that it is acceptable to plug
> something in there from the HBase project
>
> - Are not using another block placement policy, either the one
> from HDFS-RAID or their own
>
The above list makes this approach pretty much untenable.
(We'd customize block policy by looking at the path to the file? We'd
then fall back on default or pass the buck to another user-specified
policy?)
St.Ack
> Changing the block placement policy for HBase WALs to avoid the local
> machine is interesting. Those who could make use of this approach
> would be those who:
>
> - Control their NameNode, it's classpath, and it's configuration
>
> - Would make the risk assessment that it is acceptable to plug
> something in there from the HBase project
>
> - Are not using another block placement policy, either the one
> from HDFS-RAID or their own
>
The above list makes this approach pretty much untenable.
(We'd customize block policy by looking at the path to the file? We'd
then fall back on default or pass the buck to another user-specified
policy?)
St.Ack
+
Stack 2012-07-18, 09:36
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfslars hofhansl 2012-07-13, 17:11
In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
- it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
- i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
- as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Todd,
>>
>> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
>> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
>> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
>> without any interface change...
>>
>> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
>> for specific functions like recovery.
>> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
>> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
>> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
>> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
>> crash, but for large failure it could.
>> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
>> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>>
>> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
>> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>>
>> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
>> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
>> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
>> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
>> workaround...
>>
>> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
>> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
>> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
>> who's dead.
>> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
>> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hey Nicolas,
>>>
>>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
>>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
>>> side in a few ways:
>>>
>>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
>>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
>>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
>>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
>>> restart.
>>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
>>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
>>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
>>> (slow) node.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>>>
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
- it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
- i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
- as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Todd,
>>
>> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
>> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
>> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
>> without any interface change...
>>
>> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
>> for specific functions like recovery.
>> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
>> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
>> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
>> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
>> crash, but for large failure it could.
>> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
>> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>>
>> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
>> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>>
>> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
>> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
>> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
>> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
>> workaround...
>>
>> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
>> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
>> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
>> who's dead.
>> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
>> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hey Nicolas,
>>>
>>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
>>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
>>> side in a few ways:
>>>
>>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
>>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
>>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
>>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
>>> restart.
>>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
>>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
>>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
>>> (slow) node.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
>>>
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
>>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
+
lars hofhansl 2012-07-13, 17:11
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsTed Yu 2012-07-13, 17:18
With HBASE-5699, the slow down should be tolerable.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as
> mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance
> improvement from this so far.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> > cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> > would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> > we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi Todd,
> >>
> >> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
> >> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
> >> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
> >> without any interface change...
> >>
> >> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
> >> for specific functions like recovery.
> >> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
> >> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
> >> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
> >> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
> >> crash, but for large failure it could.
> >> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
> >> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
> >>
> >> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
> >> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
> >>
> >> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
> >> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
> >> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
> >> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
> >> workaround...
> >>
> >> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
> >> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
> >> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
> >> who's dead.
> >> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
> >> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hey Nicolas,
> >>>
> >>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
> >>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
> >>> side in a few ways:
> >>>
> >>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
> >>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
> >>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
> >>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
> >>> restart.
> >>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
> >>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
> >>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as
> mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance
> improvement from this so far.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> > cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> > would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> > we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi Todd,
> >>
> >> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
> >> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
> >> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
> >> without any interface change...
> >>
> >> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
> >> for specific functions like recovery.
> >> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
> >> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
> >> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
> >> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
> >> crash, but for large failure it could.
> >> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
> >> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
> >>
> >> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
> >> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
> >>
> >> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
> >> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
> >> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
> >> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
> >> workaround...
> >>
> >> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
> >> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
> >> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
> >> who's dead.
> >> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
> >> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hey Nicolas,
> >>>
> >>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
> >>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
> >>> side in a few ways:
> >>>
> >>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
> >>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
> >>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
> >>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
> >>> restart.
> >>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
> >>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
> >>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
+
Ted Yu 2012-07-13, 17:18
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-13, 17:46
>From a performance point of view, I think it could be manageable.
If I put it to an extreme, today we're writing to 3 locations, with
local one being often useless. If we write only to the 2 remote
locations, we have the same reliability, without the issue of using
the dead node when we read for recovery.
And when we write to 2 remote locations today, we write to one which
is on a remote rack. So if tomorrow we write to 3 remote locations, 2
on the same rack and one on another:
- we don't add disk i/o to the cluster: still 3 blocks written in the cluster.
- the added latency should be low compared to the existing ones as
it's on the same rack.
- we're adding some network i/o, but on the same rack.
- as it's an append, we're on the same network socket, the connection
cost is not important.
So we're getting a reliability boost at a very reasonable price I
think (it's always cheap on paper :-) And, for someone needing better
write perfs, having only two replica is not unreasonable compared to
what we have today in terms of reliability...
I'm trying to find something different that could be made available
sooner without deployment issue. May be there is a hack possible
around DFSClient#reportBadBlocks, but there are some side effects as
well...
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:11 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
>> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
>> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
>> we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Todd,
>>>
>>> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
>>> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
>>> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
>>> without any interface change...
>>>
>>> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
>>> for specific functions like recovery.
>>> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
>>> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
>>> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
>>> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
>>> crash, but for large failure it could.
>>> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
>>> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>>>
>>> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
>>> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>>>
>>> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
>>> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
>>> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
>>> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
>>> workaround...
If I put it to an extreme, today we're writing to 3 locations, with
local one being often useless. If we write only to the 2 remote
locations, we have the same reliability, without the issue of using
the dead node when we read for recovery.
And when we write to 2 remote locations today, we write to one which
is on a remote rack. So if tomorrow we write to 3 remote locations, 2
on the same rack and one on another:
- we don't add disk i/o to the cluster: still 3 blocks written in the cluster.
- the added latency should be low compared to the existing ones as
it's on the same rack.
- we're adding some network i/o, but on the same rack.
- as it's an append, we're on the same network socket, the connection
cost is not important.
So we're getting a reliability boost at a very reasonable price I
think (it's always cheap on paper :-) And, for someone needing better
write perfs, having only two replica is not unreasonable compared to
what we have today in terms of reliability...
I'm trying to find something different that could be made available
sooner without deployment issue. May be there is a hack possible
around DFSClient#reportBadBlocks, but there are some side effects as
well...
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:11 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
>> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
>> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
>> we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Todd,
>>>
>>> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
>>> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
>>> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
>>> without any interface change...
>>>
>>> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
>>> for specific functions like recovery.
>>> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
>>> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
>>> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
>>> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
>>> crash, but for large failure it could.
>>> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
>>> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
>>>
>>> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
>>> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
>>>
>>> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
>>> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
>>> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
>>> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
>>> workaround...
+
N Keywal 2012-07-13, 17:46
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-16, 12:00
I found another solution, better than the workaround I was previously
mentionning, that could be implemented in the DFS client or the
namenode:
The NN returns a set of ordered DN. We could open this ordering. For
an hlog file, if there is a DN on the same node as the dead RS, this
DN would get the lowest priority. HBase would just need the file name
of the block to make this decision.
Advantages are:
- this part is already centralized in hdfs namenode. To do it cleanly
it requires publishing racks & node distribution in an interface; but
I hope it's possible if not already done.
- it can be also put in the DFSClient, and this solves the issues
mentioned by Andrew: the customization would be for HBase only, and
would not impact other applications sharing the cluster.
- The client already modifies the nodes list returned by the NN, so
we're not adding much responsibility here.
- We just change the order of the blocks, nothing else it change in
hdfs. Nevertheless, the dead node will be tried only if all the other
nodes failed as well, so it solved the issue for the block transfer (I
still need to look after the ipc.Client stuff, but it's another point
hopefully)...
Issues
- it requires a change in hdfs...
Do you see any other issue with this approach?
Cheers,
N.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a performance point of view, I think it could be manageable.
> If I put it to an extreme, today we're writing to 3 locations, with
> local one being often useless. If we write only to the 2 remote
> locations, we have the same reliability, without the issue of using
> the dead node when we read for recovery.
>
> And when we write to 2 remote locations today, we write to one which
> is on a remote rack. So if tomorrow we write to 3 remote locations, 2
> on the same rack and one on another:
> - we don't add disk i/o to the cluster: still 3 blocks written in the cluster.
> - the added latency should be low compared to the existing ones as
> it's on the same rack.
> - we're adding some network i/o, but on the same rack.
> - as it's an append, we're on the same network socket, the connection
> cost is not important.
>
> So we're getting a reliability boost at a very reasonable price I
> think (it's always cheap on paper :-) And, for someone needing better
> write perfs, having only two replica is not unreasonable compared to
> what we have today in terms of reliability...
>
> I'm trying to find something different that could be made available
> sooner without deployment issue. May be there is a hack possible
> around DFSClient#reportBadBlocks, but there are some side effects as
> well...
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:11 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
>> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
>>
>> -- Lars
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>>
>> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
>> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
>> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
>> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
>> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>>
>> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
>> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
>> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
>>> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
>>> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
mentionning, that could be implemented in the DFS client or the
namenode:
The NN returns a set of ordered DN. We could open this ordering. For
an hlog file, if there is a DN on the same node as the dead RS, this
DN would get the lowest priority. HBase would just need the file name
of the block to make this decision.
Advantages are:
- this part is already centralized in hdfs namenode. To do it cleanly
it requires publishing racks & node distribution in an interface; but
I hope it's possible if not already done.
- it can be also put in the DFSClient, and this solves the issues
mentioned by Andrew: the customization would be for HBase only, and
would not impact other applications sharing the cluster.
- The client already modifies the nodes list returned by the NN, so
we're not adding much responsibility here.
- We just change the order of the blocks, nothing else it change in
hdfs. Nevertheless, the dead node will be tried only if all the other
nodes failed as well, so it solved the issue for the block transfer (I
still need to look after the ipc.Client stuff, but it's another point
hopefully)...
Issues
- it requires a change in hdfs...
Do you see any other issue with this approach?
Cheers,
N.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a performance point of view, I think it could be manageable.
> If I put it to an extreme, today we're writing to 3 locations, with
> local one being often useless. If we write only to the 2 remote
> locations, we have the same reliability, without the issue of using
> the dead node when we read for recovery.
>
> And when we write to 2 remote locations today, we write to one which
> is on a remote rack. So if tomorrow we write to 3 remote locations, 2
> on the same rack and one on another:
> - we don't add disk i/o to the cluster: still 3 blocks written in the cluster.
> - the added latency should be low compared to the existing ones as
> it's on the same rack.
> - we're adding some network i/o, but on the same rack.
> - as it's an append, we're on the same network socket, the connection
> cost is not important.
>
> So we're getting a reliability boost at a very reasonable price I
> think (it's always cheap on paper :-) And, for someone needing better
> write perfs, having only two replica is not unreasonable compared to
> what we have today in terms of reliability...
>
> I'm trying to find something different that could be made available
> sooner without deployment issue. May be there is a hack possible
> around DFSClient#reportBadBlocks, but there are some side effects as
> well...
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:11 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
>> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
>>
>> -- Lars
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>>
>> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
>> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
>> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
>> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
>> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>>
>> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
>> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
>> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
>>> cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
>>> would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
+
N Keywal 2012-07-16, 12:00
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-16, 17:08
And to continue on this, for the files still opened (i.e. our wal
files), we've got two calls to the dead DN:
one, during the input stream opening, from DFSClient#updateBlockInfo.
This calls fails, but the exception is shallowed without being logged.
The node info is not updated, but there is no error, so we continue
without the right info. The timeout will be 60 seconds. This call is
one the port 50020.
the second, will be the one already mentioned for the data transfer,
with the timeout of 69 seconds. The dead nodes list is not updated by
the first failure, leading to a total wait time >2 minutes if we got
directed to the bad location.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found another solution, better than the workaround I was previously
> mentionning, that could be implemented in the DFS client or the
> namenode:
>
> The NN returns a set of ordered DN. We could open this ordering. For
> an hlog file, if there is a DN on the same node as the dead RS, this
> DN would get the lowest priority. HBase would just need the file name
> of the block to make this decision.
>
> Advantages are:
> - this part is already centralized in hdfs namenode. To do it cleanly
> it requires publishing racks & node distribution in an interface; but
> I hope it's possible if not already done.
> - it can be also put in the DFSClient, and this solves the issues
> mentioned by Andrew: the customization would be for HBase only, and
> would not impact other applications sharing the cluster.
> - The client already modifies the nodes list returned by the NN, so
> we're not adding much responsibility here.
> - We just change the order of the blocks, nothing else it change in
> hdfs. Nevertheless, the dead node will be tried only if all the other
> nodes failed as well, so it solved the issue for the block transfer (I
> still need to look after the ipc.Client stuff, but it's another point
> hopefully)...
>
> Issues
> - it requires a change in hdfs...
>
> Do you see any other issue with this approach?
>
> Cheers,
>
> N.
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From a performance point of view, I think it could be manageable.
>> If I put it to an extreme, today we're writing to 3 locations, with
>> local one being often useless. If we write only to the 2 remote
>> locations, we have the same reliability, without the issue of using
>> the dead node when we read for recovery.
>>
>> And when we write to 2 remote locations today, we write to one which
>> is on a remote rack. So if tomorrow we write to 3 remote locations, 2
>> on the same rack and one on another:
>> - we don't add disk i/o to the cluster: still 3 blocks written in the cluster.
>> - the added latency should be low compared to the existing ones as
>> it's on the same rack.
>> - we're adding some network i/o, but on the same rack.
>> - as it's an append, we're on the same network socket, the connection
>> cost is not important.
>>
>> So we're getting a reliability boost at a very reasonable price I
>> think (it's always cheap on paper :-) And, for someone needing better
>> write perfs, having only two replica is not unreasonable compared to
>> what we have today in terms of reliability...
>>
>> I'm trying to find something different that could be made available
>> sooner without deployment issue. May be there is a hack possible
>> around DFSClient#reportBadBlocks, but there are some side effects as
>> well...
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:11 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
>>> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
>>> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>>
files), we've got two calls to the dead DN:
one, during the input stream opening, from DFSClient#updateBlockInfo.
This calls fails, but the exception is shallowed without being logged.
The node info is not updated, but there is no error, so we continue
without the right info. The timeout will be 60 seconds. This call is
one the port 50020.
the second, will be the one already mentioned for the data transfer,
with the timeout of 69 seconds. The dead nodes list is not updated by
the first failure, leading to a total wait time >2 minutes if we got
directed to the bad location.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found another solution, better than the workaround I was previously
> mentionning, that could be implemented in the DFS client or the
> namenode:
>
> The NN returns a set of ordered DN. We could open this ordering. For
> an hlog file, if there is a DN on the same node as the dead RS, this
> DN would get the lowest priority. HBase would just need the file name
> of the block to make this decision.
>
> Advantages are:
> - this part is already centralized in hdfs namenode. To do it cleanly
> it requires publishing racks & node distribution in an interface; but
> I hope it's possible if not already done.
> - it can be also put in the DFSClient, and this solves the issues
> mentioned by Andrew: the customization would be for HBase only, and
> would not impact other applications sharing the cluster.
> - The client already modifies the nodes list returned by the NN, so
> we're not adding much responsibility here.
> - We just change the order of the blocks, nothing else it change in
> hdfs. Nevertheless, the dead node will be tried only if all the other
> nodes failed as well, so it solved the issue for the block transfer (I
> still need to look after the ipc.Client stuff, but it's another point
> hopefully)...
>
> Issues
> - it requires a change in hdfs...
>
> Do you see any other issue with this approach?
>
> Cheers,
>
> N.
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From a performance point of view, I think it could be manageable.
>> If I put it to an extreme, today we're writing to 3 locations, with
>> local one being often useless. If we write only to the 2 remote
>> locations, we have the same reliability, without the issue of using
>> the dead node when we read for recovery.
>>
>> And when we write to 2 remote locations today, we write to one which
>> is on a remote rack. So if tomorrow we write to 3 remote locations, 2
>> on the same rack and one on another:
>> - we don't add disk i/o to the cluster: still 3 blocks written in the cluster.
>> - the added latency should be low compared to the existing ones as
>> it's on the same rack.
>> - we're adding some network i/o, but on the same rack.
>> - as it's an append, we're on the same network socket, the connection
>> cost is not important.
>>
>> So we're getting a reliability boost at a very reasonable price I
>> think (it's always cheap on paper :-) And, for someone needing better
>> write perfs, having only two replica is not unreasonable compared to
>> what we have today in terms of reliability...
>>
>> I'm trying to find something different that could be made available
>> sooner without deployment issue. May be there is a hack possible
>> around DFSClient#reportBadBlocks, but there are some side effects as
>> well...
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:11 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In that case, though, we'd slow down normal operation.
>>> Maybe that can be alleviated with HDFS-1783/HBASE-6116, although as mentioned in HBASE-6116, I have not been able to measure any performance improvement from this so far.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:27 AM
>>> Subject: Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfs
>>
+
N Keywal 2012-07-16, 17:08
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsStack 2012-07-18, 10:00
The proposal seems good to me. Its minimally intrusive.
See also below...
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:08 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And to continue on this, for the files still opened (i.e. our wal
> files), we've got two calls to the dead DN:
>
> one, during the input stream opening, from DFSClient#updateBlockInfo.
> This calls fails, but the exception is shallowed without being logged.
> The node info is not updated, but there is no error, so we continue
> without the right info. The timeout will be 60 seconds. This call is
> one the port 50020.
> the second, will be the one already mentioned for the data transfer,
> with the timeout of 69 seconds. The dead nodes list is not updated by
> the first failure, leading to a total wait time >2 minutes if we got
> directed to the bad location.
>
Saving this extra second timeout is worth our doing a bit of work.
The NN is like the federal government. It has general high-level
policies and knows about 'conditions' from the macro level; network
topologies, placement policies. The DFSInput/OutputStream is like
local government. It reacts to the local conditions reordering the
node list if it just timed out the node in position zero. Whats
missing is state government, smarts in DFSClient, a means of being
able to inform adjacent local governments about conditions that might
effect their operation; dead of lagging DNs, etc.
St.Ack
See also below...
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:08 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And to continue on this, for the files still opened (i.e. our wal
> files), we've got two calls to the dead DN:
>
> one, during the input stream opening, from DFSClient#updateBlockInfo.
> This calls fails, but the exception is shallowed without being logged.
> The node info is not updated, but there is no error, so we continue
> without the right info. The timeout will be 60 seconds. This call is
> one the port 50020.
> the second, will be the one already mentioned for the data transfer,
> with the timeout of 69 seconds. The dead nodes list is not updated by
> the first failure, leading to a total wait time >2 minutes if we got
> directed to the bad location.
>
Saving this extra second timeout is worth our doing a bit of work.
The NN is like the federal government. It has general high-level
policies and knows about 'conditions' from the macro level; network
topologies, placement policies. The DFSInput/OutputStream is like
local government. It reacts to the local conditions reordering the
node list if it just timed out the node in position zero. Whats
missing is state government, smarts in DFSClient, a means of being
able to inform adjacent local governments about conditions that might
effect their operation; dead of lagging DNs, etc.
St.Ack
+
Stack 2012-07-18, 10:00
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsTed Yu 2012-07-13, 17:02
One clarification on HDFS-385: the last post on that JIRA only means the
submission of patch for branch-1. I don't see integration yet.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:27 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> > cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> > would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> > we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi Todd,
> >>
> >> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
> >> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
> >> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
> >> without any interface change...
> >>
> >> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
> >> for specific functions like recovery.
> >> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
> >> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
> >> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
> >> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
> >> crash, but for large failure it could.
> >> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
> >> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
> >>
> >> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
> >> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
> >>
> >> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
> >> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
> >> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
> >> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
> >> workaround...
> >>
> >> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
> >> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
> >> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
> >> who's dead.
> >> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
> >> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hey Nicolas,
> >>>
> >>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
> >>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
> >>> side in a few ways:
> >>>
> >>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
> >>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
> >>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
> >>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
> >>> restart.
> >>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
> >>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
> >>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
> >>> (slow) node.
> >>>
> >>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
> >>>
> >>> -Todd
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
> >>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
submission of patch for branch-1. I don't see integration yet.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:27 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked at this part of hdfs code, and
> - it's not simple to add it in a clean way, even if doing it is possible.
> - i was wrong the the 3s hearbeat: the hearbeat is every 5 minutes
> actually. So changing this would not be without a lot of side effects.
> - as a side note HADOOP-8144 is interesting...
>
> So not writing the WAL on the local machine could be a good medium
> term option, that could likely be implemented with HDFS-385 (made
> available recently in "branch-1". I don't know what it stands for).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another option would be to never write the wal locally: in nearly all
> > cases it won't be used as it's on the dead box. And then the recovery
> > would be directed by the NN to a dead DN in a single box failure. And
> > we would have 3 copies instead of 2, increasing global reliability...
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi Todd,
> >>
> >> Do you think the change would be too intrusive for hdfs? I aggree,
> >> there are many less critical components in hadoop :-). I was hoping
> >> that this state could be internal to the NN and could remain localized
> >> without any interface change...
> >>
> >> Your proposal would help for sure. I see 3 points if we try to do it
> >> for specific functions like recovery.
> >> - we would then need to manage the case when all 3 nodes timeouts
> >> after 1s, hoping that two of them are wrong positive...
> >> - the writes between DN would still be with the old timeout. I didn't
> >> look in details at the impact. It won't be an issue for single box
> >> crash, but for large failure it could.
> >> - we would want to change it to for the ipc.Client as well. Note sure
> >> if the change would not be visible to all functions.
> >>
> >> What worries me about setting very low timeouts is that it's difficult
> >> to validate, it tends to work until it goes to production...
> >>
> >> I was also thinking of making the deadNodes list public in the client,
> >> so hbase could tell to the DFSClient: 'this node is dead, I know it
> >> because I'm recovering the RS', but it would have some false positive
> >> (software region server crash), and seems a little like a
> >> workaround...
> >>
> >> In the middle (thinking again about your proposal), we could add a
> >> function in hbase that would first check the DNs owning the WAL,
> >> trying to connect with a 1s timeout, to be able to tell the DFSClient
> >> who's dead.
> >> Or we could put this function in DFSClient, a kind of boolean to say
> >> fail fast on dn errors for this read...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hey Nicolas,
> >>>
> >>> Another idea that might be able to help this without adding an entire
> >>> new state to the protocol would be to just improve the HDFS client
> >>> side in a few ways:
> >>>
> >>> 1) change the "deadnodes" cache to be a per-DFSClient structure
> >>> instead of per-stream. So, after reading one block, we'd note that the
> >>> DN was dead, and de-prioritize it on future reads. Of course we'd need
> >>> to be able to re-try eventually since dead nodes do eventually
> >>> restart.
> >>> 2) when connecting to a DN, if the connection hasn't succeeded within
> >>> 1-2 seconds, start making a connection to another replica. If the
> >>> other replica succeeds first, then drop the connection to the first
> >>> (slow) node.
> >>>
> >>> Wouldn't this solve the problem less invasively?
> >>>
> >>> -Todd
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have looked at the HBase MTTR scenario when we lose a full box with
> >>>> its datanode and its hbase region server altogether: It means a RS
+
Ted Yu 2012-07-13, 17:02
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsStack 2012-07-17, 15:41
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:20 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
> impacts. We have the calculated values:
> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
> heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
> heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
>
...
> connect/read: (3s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 60s ("dfs.socket.timeout")
> write: (5s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 480s ("dfs.datanode.socket.write.timeout")
>
> That will set a 69s timeout to get a "connect" error with the default config.
>
Adding this list of configs to the manual in a table would be
generally useful I think (these and the lease ones below), especially
if had a note on what happens if you change the configs.
The 69s timeout is a bit rough espeically if a read on another open
file already figured the DN dead; ditto on the write.
> On paper, it would be great to set "dfs.socket.timeout" to a minimal
> value during a log split, as we know we will get a dead DN 33% of the
> time. It may be more complicated in real life as the connections are
> shared per process. And we could still have the issue with the
> ipc.Client.
>
Seems like we read the DFSClient.this.socketTimeout opening
connections to blocks.
> As a conclusion, I think it could be interesting to have a third
> status for DN in HDFS: between live and dead as today, we could have
> "sick". We would have:
> 1) Dead, known as such => As today: Start to replicate the blocks to
> other nodes. You enter this state after 10 minutes. We could even wait
> more.
> 2) Likely to be dead: don't propose it for write blocks, put it with a
> lower priority for read blocks. We would enter this state in two
> conditions:
> 2.1) No heartbeat for 30 seconds (configurable of course). As there
> is an existing heartbeat of 3 seconds, we could even be more
> aggressive here.
> 2.2) We could have a shutdown hook in hdfs such as when a DN dies
> 'properly' it says to the NN, and the NN can put it in this 'half dead
> state'.
> => In all cases, the node stays in the second state until the 10.30
> timeout is reached or until a heartbeat is received.
I suppose as Todd suggests, we could do this client side. The extra
state would complicate NN (making it difficult to get such a change
in). The API to mark a DN dead seems like a nice-to-have. Master or
client could pull on it when it knows a server dead (not just the RS).
St.Ack
> I looked in details at the hdfs configuration parameters and their
> impacts. We have the calculated values:
> heartbeat.interval = 3s ("dfs.heartbeat.interval").
> heartbeat.recheck.interval = 300s ("heartbeat.recheck.interval")
> heartbeatExpireInterval = 2 * 300 + 10 * 3 = 630s => 10.30 minutes
>
...
> connect/read: (3s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 60s ("dfs.socket.timeout")
> write: (5s (hardcoded) * NumberOfReplica) + 480s ("dfs.datanode.socket.write.timeout")
>
> That will set a 69s timeout to get a "connect" error with the default config.
>
Adding this list of configs to the manual in a table would be
generally useful I think (these and the lease ones below), especially
if had a note on what happens if you change the configs.
The 69s timeout is a bit rough espeically if a read on another open
file already figured the DN dead; ditto on the write.
> On paper, it would be great to set "dfs.socket.timeout" to a minimal
> value during a log split, as we know we will get a dead DN 33% of the
> time. It may be more complicated in real life as the connections are
> shared per process. And we could still have the issue with the
> ipc.Client.
>
Seems like we read the DFSClient.this.socketTimeout opening
connections to blocks.
> As a conclusion, I think it could be interesting to have a third
> status for DN in HDFS: between live and dead as today, we could have
> "sick". We would have:
> 1) Dead, known as such => As today: Start to replicate the blocks to
> other nodes. You enter this state after 10 minutes. We could even wait
> more.
> 2) Likely to be dead: don't propose it for write blocks, put it with a
> lower priority for read blocks. We would enter this state in two
> conditions:
> 2.1) No heartbeat for 30 seconds (configurable of course). As there
> is an existing heartbeat of 3 seconds, we could even be more
> aggressive here.
> 2.2) We could have a shutdown hook in hdfs such as when a DN dies
> 'properly' it says to the NN, and the NN can put it in this 'half dead
> state'.
> => In all cases, the node stays in the second state until the 10.30
> timeout is reached or until a heartbeat is received.
I suppose as Todd suggests, we could do this client side. The extra
state would complicate NN (making it difficult to get such a change
in). The API to mark a DN dead seems like a nice-to-have. Master or
client could pull on it when it knows a server dead (not just the RS).
St.Ack
+
Stack 2012-07-17, 15:41
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsN Keywal 2012-07-17, 17:14
> Adding this list of configs to the manual in a table would be
> generally useful I think (these and the lease ones below), especially
> if had a note on what happens if you change the configs.
> The 69s timeout is a bit rough espeically if a read on another open
> file already figured the DN dead; ditto on the write.
Aggreed. I'm currently doing that. I have as well a set of log
analysis that could make it to the ref book. I will create a Jira to
propose them.
>> On paper, it would be great to set "dfs.socket.timeout" to a minimal
>> value during a log split, as we know we will get a dead DN 33% of the
>> time. It may be more complicated in real life as the connections are
>> shared per process. And we could still have the issue with the
>> ipc.Client.
>>
>
> Seems like we read the DFSClient.this.socketTimeout opening
> connections to blocks.
>
>> As a conclusion, I think it could be interesting to have a third
>> status for DN in HDFS: between live and dead as today, we could have
>> "sick". We would have:
>> 1) Dead, known as such => As today: Start to replicate the blocks to
>> other nodes. You enter this state after 10 minutes. We could even wait
>> more.
>> 2) Likely to be dead: don't propose it for write blocks, put it with a
>> lower priority for read blocks. We would enter this state in two
>> conditions:
>> 2.1) No heartbeat for 30 seconds (configurable of course). As there
>> is an existing heartbeat of 3 seconds, we could even be more
>> aggressive here.
>> 2.2) We could have a shutdown hook in hdfs such as when a DN dies
>> 'properly' it says to the NN, and the NN can put it in this 'half dead
>> state'.
>> => In all cases, the node stays in the second state until the 10.30
>> timeout is reached or until a heartbeat is received.
>
> I suppose as Todd suggests, we could do this client side. The extra
> state would complicate NN (making it difficult to get such a change
After some iterations I came to a solution close to his proposition,
mentionned in my mail from yesterday.
To me we should fix this, and this includes HBASE-6401. The question
is mainly on which hdfs branch hbase would need it, as HDFS code
changed between the 1.0.3 release and the branch 2. HADOOP-8144 is
also important for people configuring the topology imho.
> in). The API to mark a DN dead seems like a nice-to-have. Master or
> client could pull on it when it knows a server dead (not just the RS).
Yes, there is a mechanism today to tell the NN to decommision a NN,
but it's complex, we need to write a file with the 'unwanted' nodes,
and we need to tell the NN to reload it. Not really a 'mark as dead"
function.
> generally useful I think (these and the lease ones below), especially
> if had a note on what happens if you change the configs.
> The 69s timeout is a bit rough espeically if a read on another open
> file already figured the DN dead; ditto on the write.
Aggreed. I'm currently doing that. I have as well a set of log
analysis that could make it to the ref book. I will create a Jira to
propose them.
>> On paper, it would be great to set "dfs.socket.timeout" to a minimal
>> value during a log split, as we know we will get a dead DN 33% of the
>> time. It may be more complicated in real life as the connections are
>> shared per process. And we could still have the issue with the
>> ipc.Client.
>>
>
> Seems like we read the DFSClient.this.socketTimeout opening
> connections to blocks.
>
>> As a conclusion, I think it could be interesting to have a third
>> status for DN in HDFS: between live and dead as today, we could have
>> "sick". We would have:
>> 1) Dead, known as such => As today: Start to replicate the blocks to
>> other nodes. You enter this state after 10 minutes. We could even wait
>> more.
>> 2) Likely to be dead: don't propose it for write blocks, put it with a
>> lower priority for read blocks. We would enter this state in two
>> conditions:
>> 2.1) No heartbeat for 30 seconds (configurable of course). As there
>> is an existing heartbeat of 3 seconds, we could even be more
>> aggressive here.
>> 2.2) We could have a shutdown hook in hdfs such as when a DN dies
>> 'properly' it says to the NN, and the NN can put it in this 'half dead
>> state'.
>> => In all cases, the node stays in the second state until the 10.30
>> timeout is reached or until a heartbeat is received.
>
> I suppose as Todd suggests, we could do this client side. The extra
> state would complicate NN (making it difficult to get such a change
After some iterations I came to a solution close to his proposition,
mentionned in my mail from yesterday.
To me we should fix this, and this includes HBASE-6401. The question
is mainly on which hdfs branch hbase would need it, as HDFS code
changed between the 1.0.3 release and the branch 2. HADOOP-8144 is
also important for people configuring the topology imho.
> in). The API to mark a DN dead seems like a nice-to-have. Master or
> client could pull on it when it knows a server dead (not just the RS).
Yes, there is a mechanism today to tell the NN to decommision a NN,
but it's complex, we need to write a file with the 'unwanted' nodes,
and we need to tell the NN to reload it. Not really a 'mark as dead"
function.
+
N Keywal 2012-07-17, 17:14
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsAndrew Purtell 2012-07-17, 19:51
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me we should fix this, and this includes HBASE-6401. The question
> is mainly on which hdfs branch hbase would need it, as HDFS code
> changed between the 1.0.3 release and the branch 2. HADOOP-8144 is
> also important for people configuring the topology imho.
It's an interesting question if the HDFS 2 write/append pipeline is
superior to the HDFS 1 one. I've seen a common opinion that it is
indeed superior (as in, does not have known bugs) but have not had the
bandwidth to validate this personally. For us, it's mostly a moot
point, we are planning our next production generation to be on HDFS 2
so we can run a truly HA (hot failover) NN configuration, perferably
with the Quorum Journal approach to edit log sharing (HDFS-3077).
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
Hein (via Tom White)
> To me we should fix this, and this includes HBASE-6401. The question
> is mainly on which hdfs branch hbase would need it, as HDFS code
> changed between the 1.0.3 release and the branch 2. HADOOP-8144 is
> also important for people configuring the topology imho.
It's an interesting question if the HDFS 2 write/append pipeline is
superior to the HDFS 1 one. I've seen a common opinion that it is
indeed superior (as in, does not have known bugs) but have not had the
bandwidth to validate this personally. For us, it's mostly a moot
point, we are planning our next production generation to be on HDFS 2
so we can run a truly HA (hot failover) NN configuration, perferably
with the Quorum Journal approach to edit log sharing (HDFS-3077).
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
Hein (via Tom White)
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-07-17, 19:51
-
Re: hbase mttr vs. hdfsStack 2012-07-18, 09:26
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM, N Keywal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suppose as Todd suggests, we could do this client side. The extra
>> state would complicate NN (making it difficult to get such a change
>
> After some iterations I came to a solution close to his proposition,
> mentionned in my mail from yesterday.
> To me we should fix this, and this includes HBASE-6401. The question
> is mainly on which hdfs branch hbase would need it, as HDFS code
> changed between the 1.0.3 release and the branch 2. HADOOP-8144 is
> also important for people configuring the topology imho.
>
Yes. Needs to be fixed for 1.0 and 2.0. This is ugly but could we
have an HBase modified DFSClient load ahead of the hadoop one on
CLASSPATH so we could get the fix in earlier? (Maybe its worth
starting up an HBaseDFSClient effort if there are a list of particular
behaviors such as the proposed reordering of replicas given us by the
namenode, socket timeouts that differ dependent on who is opening the
DFSInput/OutputStream, etc). We should work on getting fixes into
hadoop meantime (because a hbase dfsclient won't help the intra-DN
traffic timeouts). Its kinda silly the way we can repeatedly timeout
on a DN we know elsewhere is dead while meantime data is offline. Its
kind of an important one to fix I'd say.
>> in). The API to mark a DN dead seems like a nice-to-have. Master or
>> client could pull on it when it knows a server dead (not just the RS).
>
> Yes, there is a mechanism today to tell the NN to decommision a NN,
> but it's complex, we need to write a file with the 'unwanted' nodes,
> and we need to tell the NN to reload it. Not really a 'mark as dead"
> function.
Yeah. I remember that bit of messing now. Useful when ops want to
decommission a node but does not serve this particular need.
Its a bit of a tough one though in that the NN would have to 'trust'
the client that is pulling on this new API that says a DN is down.
St.Ack
>> I suppose as Todd suggests, we could do this client side. The extra
>> state would complicate NN (making it difficult to get such a change
>
> After some iterations I came to a solution close to his proposition,
> mentionned in my mail from yesterday.
> To me we should fix this, and this includes HBASE-6401. The question
> is mainly on which hdfs branch hbase would need it, as HDFS code
> changed between the 1.0.3 release and the branch 2. HADOOP-8144 is
> also important for people configuring the topology imho.
>
Yes. Needs to be fixed for 1.0 and 2.0. This is ugly but could we
have an HBase modified DFSClient load ahead of the hadoop one on
CLASSPATH so we could get the fix in earlier? (Maybe its worth
starting up an HBaseDFSClient effort if there are a list of particular
behaviors such as the proposed reordering of replicas given us by the
namenode, socket timeouts that differ dependent on who is opening the
DFSInput/OutputStream, etc). We should work on getting fixes into
hadoop meantime (because a hbase dfsclient won't help the intra-DN
traffic timeouts). Its kinda silly the way we can repeatedly timeout
on a DN we know elsewhere is dead while meantime data is offline. Its
kind of an important one to fix I'd say.
>> in). The API to mark a DN dead seems like a nice-to-have. Master or
>> client could pull on it when it knows a server dead (not just the RS).
>
> Yes, there is a mechanism today to tell the NN to decommision a NN,
> but it's complex, we need to write a file with the 'unwanted' nodes,
> and we need to tell the NN to reload it. Not really a 'mark as dead"
> function.
Yeah. I remember that bit of messing now. Useful when ops want to
decommission a node but does not serve this particular need.
Its a bit of a tough one though in that the NN would have to 'trust'
the client that is pulling on this new API that says a DN is down.
St.Ack
+
Stack 2012-07-18, 09:26
