hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yoram Arnon" <yar...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject RE: dfs datanode heartbeats and getBlockwork requests
Date Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:11:20 GMT
Waiting until every block to be accounted for is a good approach, except
when a block is actually lost, which we expect to be rare.
Declaring the expected data nodes can be flexible however: initially the
list is empty, and it is populated as nodes first connect. It's kept
persistent, so that when the name node restarts it knows who was connected
when it went down, aka the expected list, and waits for them. When a node is
declared dead, and its blocks are replicated elsewhere, it is also taken off
the list. If/when it reconnects, it gets added back. That avoids having to
manually configure the list on the name node.
That said, it's useful to actully configure the name node manually,
preventing configuration errors where some data node connects to the wrong
name node. One central configuration is easier to control and maintain than
many remote configs. That's a separate argument though - we can get all we
need without this feature too.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Cutting [mailto:cutting@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:23 AM
To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: dfs datanode heartbeats and getBlockwork requests

I would rather avoid having to declare the set of expected data nodes if we
can avoid it, as I think it introduces a number of complexities.  For
example, if you wish to add new data nodes, you cannot simply configure them
to point to the name node and start them.  Assuming we add a notion of 'on
same rack' or 'on same switch' to dfs, and can ensure that copies of a block
are always held on multiple racks/switches, then it's convenient to be able
to safely take racks and switches offline and online without coordinating
with the namenode.  If a switch fails at startup, and 90% of the expected
nodes are not available, we should still start replication, no?  I think a
startup replication delay at the namenode handles all of these cases.  If
we're worried that the filesystem is unavailable, then we could make the
delay smarter.  The namenode could delay some number of minutes or until
every block is accounted for, whichever comes first.  And it could
refuse/delay client requests until the delay period is over, so that
applications don't start up until files are completely available.


Yoram Arnon wrote:
> Right!
> The name node, on startup, should know which data nodes are expected 
> to be there, and not make replication decisions before he knows who's 
> actually there and who's not.
> A crude way to achieve that is by just waiting for a while, hoping 
> that all the data nodes connect.
> A more refined way would be to compare who connected to who is 
> expected to connect. It enables faster startup when everyone just 
> connects quickly, and better robustness when some data nodes are slow 
> to connect, or when the name node is slow to process the barrage of
> The rule could be "no replications until X% of the expected nodes have 
> connected, AND there are no pending unprocessed connection messages". 
> X should be on the order of 90, perhaps less for very small clusters.
> Yoram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hairong Kuang [mailto:hairong@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:09 PM
> To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: dfs datanode heartbeats and getBlockwork requests
> I think it is better to implement the start-up delay at the namenode. 
> But the key is that the name node should be able to tell if it is in a 
> steady state or not either at start-up time or at runtime after a 
> network disruption. It should not instruct datanodes to replicate or 
> delete any blocks before it has reached a steady state.
> Hairong
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Cutting [mailto:cutting@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:58 AM
> To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: dfs datanode heartbeats and getBlockwork requests
> Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
>>If we moved to a scheme where the name node was just given a small 
>>number of blocks with each heartbeat, there would be no reason to not 
>>start reporting blocks immediately, would there?
> There would still be a small storm of un-needed replications on startup. 
>   Say it takes a minute at startup for all data nodes to report their 
> complete block lists to the name node.  If heartbeats are every 3 
> seconds, then all but the last data node to report in would be handed 
> 20 small lists of blocks to start replicating.  And the switches could 
> be saturated doing a lot of un-needed transfers, which would slow startup.
>   Then, for the next minute after startup, the nodes would be told to 
> delete blocks that are now over-replicated.  We'd like startup to be 
> as fast and painless as possible.  Waiting a bit before checking to 
> see if blocks are
> over- or under-replicated seems a good way.
> Doug

View raw message