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.