hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Collins <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Namespace partitioning using Locality Sensitive Hashing
Date Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:49:57 GMT
Hey Brian,

Great points. Agree that federating a set of file systems via symlinks
doesn't solve the general problem of scaling a namespace.
Imagine GFS' "Name Spaces" was mostly useful for systems that grew w/o
much need for rebalancing, eg log storage.

Thanks,
Eli

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Brian Bockelman <bbockelm@cse.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> Hey Eli,
>
> From past experience, static, manual namespace partitioning can really get you in trouble
- you have to manually keep things balanced.
>
> The following things can go wrong:
>
> 1) One of your pesky users grows unexpectedly by a factor of 10.
> 2) Your entire system grew so much that there's not enough excess capacity to split and
balance the cluster into new pieces - the extra bandwidth required would drive down production
performance too much (or you need downtime to do it and can't afford the downtime).
> 3) Your production system began as a proof of concept, and your file name system makes
it hard to split in a sane manner because you never planned on splitting the proof of concept
in the first place!
>
> Any one of these can be solved with enough effort, but it can require a huge amount of
effort if you don't realize things soon enough!  In fact, I seem to remember a ACM Queue
article with the original Google authors who cited explosive application growth as one reason
that manual balancing quickly fell out of favor.
>
> I wouldn't deny that symlinks are an incredible tool to fight namespace growth - but
it's not a 100% solution.
>
> That said, I'm looking forward to symlinks to solve a few local problems!
>
> Brian
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Ketan Dixit <ketan.dixit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> Thank you Konstantin and  Allen for your reply. The information
>>> provided really helped to improve my understanding.
>>> However I still have few questions.
>>> How Symlinks/ soft links are used to solve the probem of partitioning.
>>> (Where do the symlinks point to? All the mapping is
>>> stored in memory but symlinks point to file objects? This is little
>>> confusing to me)
>>> Can you please provide insight into this?
>>
>> The idea is to use symlinks to present a single namespace to clients
>> that is backed by multiple file systems (hdfs or other supported
>> hadoop file systems). Eg a "root" HDFS file system could contain links
>> to other file systems, eg /dir1 could point to S3, /dir2 could point
>> to a local file system, /dir3 could point to another HDFS file system,
>> etc. Clients always contact the "root" HDFS file system but are
>> transparently redirected to other file systems by symlinks. This way a
>> single namespace is partitioned across multiple file systems, but the
>> client only needs to know about the root file system. This
>> partitioning is static (you have to establish the symlinks), though
>> you can grow on the fly by adding file systems and links that point to
>> them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eli
>
>

Mime
View raw message