hadoop-common-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gabor Bota (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (HADOOP-15621) S3Guard: Implement time-based (TTL) expiry for Authoritative Directory Listing
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:26:00 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

Gabor Bota updated HADOOP-15621:
    Summary: S3Guard: Implement time-based (TTL) expiry for Authoritative Directory Listing
 (was: S3guard: Implement time-based (TTL) expiry for Authoritative Directory Listing)

> S3Guard: Implement time-based (TTL) expiry for Authoritative Directory Listing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HADOOP-15621
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15621
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: fs/s3
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0-beta1
>            Reporter: Aaron Fabbri
>            Assignee: Gabor Bota
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: HADOOP-15621.001.patch
> Similar to HADOOP-13649, I think we should add a TTL (time to live) feature to the Dynamo
metadata store (MS) for S3Guard.
> This is a similar concept to an "online algorithm" version of the CLI prune() function,
which is the "offline algorithm".
> Why: 
>  1. Self healing (soft state): since we do not implement transactions around modification
of the two systems (s3 and metadata store), certain failures can lead to inconsistency between
S3 and the metadata store (MS) state. Having a time to live (TTL) on each entry in S3Guard
means that any inconsistencies will be time bound. Thus "wait and restart your job" becomes
a valid, if ugly, way to get around any issues with FS client failure leaving things in a
bad state.
>  2. We could make manual invocation of `hadoop s3guard prune ...` unnecessary, depending
on the implementation.
>  3. Makes it possible to fix the problem that dynamo MS prune() doesn't prune directories
due to the lack of true modification time.
> How:
>  I think we need a new column in the dynamo table "entry last written time". This is
updated each time the entry is written to dynamo.
>  After that we can either
>  1. Have the client simply ignore / elide any entries that are older than the configured
>  2. Have the client delete entries older than the TTL.
> The issue with #2 is it will increase latency if done inline in the context of an FS
operation. We could mitigate this some by using an async helper thread, or probabilistically
doing it "some times" to amortize the expense of deleting stale entries (allowing some batching
as well).
> Caveats:
>  - Clock synchronization as usual is a concern. Many clusters already keep clocks close
enough via NTP. We should at least document the requirement along with the configuration knob
that enables the feature.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org

View raw message