Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS >> mail # user >> Re: HDFS performance with an without replication


Copy link to this message
-
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.
>
>
>
> john

--
Harsh J
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB