Mailing-List: contact core-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: core-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Message-ID: <1094622148.1205351087401.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pete Wyckoff (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: core-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (HADOOP-2991) dfs.du.reserved not honored in
 0.15/16 (regression from 0.14+patch for 2549)
In-Reply-To: <1253226676.1205193049201.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-2991?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12577994#action_12577994 ] 

Pete Wyckoff commented on HADOOP-2991:
--------------------------------------

Allen as usual makes some excellent points. But, I do think this re-enforces my point that this should be an interface with a default/reference implementation of 2150, but which others are free to implement themselves. And specify their class in the config.

As Allen points out, different hardware has different rules and although 2150 solves it for all hardware, some people may want something more customized to them.

Maybe I want to run an external script to figure out DFS usage? Maybe I want to do 2150, maybe I want to do the current solution, maybe the pre-0.15 solution....

-- pete


> dfs.du.reserved not honored in 0.15/16 (regression from 0.14+patch for 2549)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-2991
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2991
>             Project: Hadoop Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: dfs
>    Affects Versions: 0.15.0, 0.15.1, 0.15.2, 0.15.3, 0.16.0
>            Reporter: Joydeep Sen Sarma
>            Priority: Critical
>
> changes for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1463
> have caused a regression. earlier:
> - we could set dfs.du.reserve to 1G and be *sure* that 1G would not be used.
> now this is no longer true. I am quoting Pete Wyckoff's example:
> <example>
> Let's look at an example. 100 GB disk and /usr using 45 GB and dfs using 50 GBs now
> Df -kh shows:
> Capacity = 100 GB
> Available = 1 GB (remember ~4 GB chopped out for metadata and stuff)
> Used = 95 GBs   
> remaining = 100 GB - 50 GB - 1GB = 49 GB 
> Min(remaining, available) = 1 GB
> 98% of which is usable for DFS apparently - 
> So, we're at the limit, but are free to use 98% of the remaining 1GB.
> </example>
> this is broke. based on the discussion on 1463 - it seems like the notion of 'capacity' as being the first field of 'df' is problematic. For example - here's what our df output looks like:
> Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda3             130G  123G   49M 100% /
> as u can see - 'Size' is a misnomer - that much space is not available. Rather the actual usable space is 123G+49M ~ 123G. (not entirely sure what the discrepancy is due to - but have heard this may be due to space reserved for file system metadata). Because of this discrepancy - we end up in a situation where file system is out of space.

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