Thanks, that makes sense.
From: Harsh J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:39 PM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HDFS performance with an without replication
Write performance improves with lesser replicas (as a result of synchronous and sequenced write pipelines in HDFS). Reads would be the same, unless you're unable to schedule a rack-local read (at worst
case) due to only one (busy) rack holding it.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:38 PM, John Lilley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In our YARN application, we are considering whether to store temporary
> data with replication=1 or replication=3 (or give the user an option).
> Obviously there is a tradeoff between reliability and performance, but
> on smaller clusters I'd expect this to be less of an issue.
> What is the difference in write performance using replication=1 vs 3?
> For reading I'd expect the performance to be roughly requivalent.