Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-hadoop-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 3730 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2007 23:02:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2007 23:02:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 53297 invoked by uid 500); 22 Mar 2007 23:03:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-hadoop-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 53270 invoked by uid 500); 22 Mar 2007 23:03:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact hadoop-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 53246 invoked by uid 99); 22 Mar 2007 23:03:01 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:03:01 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.4] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:02:52 -0700 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5DD71403F for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2660084.1174604552370.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Raghu Angadi (JIRA)" To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (HADOOP-1134) Block level CRCs in HDFS In-Reply-To: <2906341.1174343312447.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12483346 ] Raghu Angadi commented on HADOOP-1134: -------------------------------------- Regd which CRCs to use during upgrade to Block crcs : 1) Ideal case : Use the existing CRC files. 2) Reasonable (I think, given the not so large deployments) : calculate on disk CRC and verify with the other datanodes. If some checksum does not match with two others, then it is considered corrupt. I think (2) is easier in terms of one-time code for upgrading. If (1) is required, then I don't mind try doing it. > Block level CRCs in HDFS > ------------------------ > > Key: HADOOP-1134 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1134 > Project: Hadoop > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: dfs > Reporter: Raghu Angadi > Assigned To: Raghu Angadi > > Currently CRCs are handled at FileSystem level and are transparent to core HDFS. See recent improvement HADOOP-928 ( that can add checksums to a given filesystem ) regd more about it. Though this served us well there a few disadvantages : > 1) This doubles namespace in HDFS ( or other filesystem implementations ). In many cases, it nearly doubles the number of blocks. Taking namenode out of CRCs would nearly double namespace performance both in terms of CPU and memory. > 2) Since CRCs are transparent to HDFS, it can not actively detect corrupted blocks. With block level CRCs, Datanode can periodically verify the checksums and report corruptions to namnode such that name replicas can be created. > We propose to have CRCs maintained for all HDFS data in much the same way as in GFS. I will update the jira with detailed requirements and design. This will include same guarantees provided by current implementation and will include a upgrade of current data. > -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.