Mailing-List: contact hadoop-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <29199468.1191280070727.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Raghu Angadi (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: hadoop-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (HADOOP-1942) Increase the concurrency of
 transaction logging to edits log
In-Reply-To: <32101259.1190700290842.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12531657 ] 

Raghu Angadi commented on HADOOP-1942:
--------------------------------------

> I am thinking of extending your idea to remember the counter in logEdit(). 

I was thinking of the same. But logEdit() is called somewhere down the stack. Are you going to set a thread local?
But even with out it, we get most of the benifit since time between logEdit() and entering logSync() is pretty small comared time to sync. But the transaction id is good as well.


> Increase the concurrency of transaction logging to edits log
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-1942
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1942
>             Project: Hadoop
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: dfs
>            Reporter: dhruba borthakur
>            Assignee: dhruba borthakur
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 0.15.0
>
>         Attachments: transactionLogSync.patch, transactionLogSync2.patch
>
>
> For some typical workloads, the throughput of the namenode is bottlenecked by the rate of transactions that are being logged into tghe edits log. In the current code, a batching scheme implies that all transactions do not have to incur a sync of the edits log to disk. However, the existing batch-ing scheme can be improved.
> One option is to keep two buffers associated with edits file. Threads write to the primary buffer while holding the FSNamesystem lock. Then the thread release the FSNamesystem lock, acquires a new lock called the syncLock, swaps buffers, and flushes the old buffer to the persistent store. Since the buffers are swapped, new transactions continue to get logged into the new buffer. (Of course, the new transactions cannot complete before this new buffer is sync-ed).
> This approach does a better job of batching syncs to disk, thus improving performance.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.