hadoop-common-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Saumitra <saumitra.offic...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HDFS file system size issue
Date Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:07:45 GMT
Hello,

Biswanath, looks like we have confusion in calculation, 1TB would be equal to 1024GB, not
114GB.


Sandeep, I checked log directory size as well. Log directories are hardly in few GBs, I have
configured log4j properties so that logs won’t be too large.

In our slave machines, we have 450GB disk partition for hadoop logs and DFS. Over there logs
directory is < 10GBs and rest space is occupied by DFS. 10GB partition is for /.

Let me quote my confusion point once again:

> Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus.
In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What
are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit
its limits?



I am talking about name node status page on 50070 port. Here is the screenshot of my name
node status page



As I understand, 'DFS used’ is the space taken by DFS, non-DFS used is spaces taken by non-DFS
data like logs or other local files from users. Namenode shows that DFS used is ~1TB but hadoop
dfs -dus shows it to be ~38GB.



On 14-Apr-2014, at 12:33 pm, Sandeep Nemuri <nhsandeep6@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please check your logs directory usage.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Biswajit Nayak <biswajit.nayak@inmobi.com> wrote:
> Whats the replication factor you have? I believe it should be 3. hadoop dus shows that
disk usage without replication. While name node ui page gives with replication. 
> 
> 38gb * 3 =114gb ~ 1TB
> 
> ~Biswa
> -----oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o-----
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Saumitra <saumitra.official@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Biswajeet,
> 
> Non-dfs usage is ~100GB over the cluster. But still the number are nowhere near 1TB.

> 
> Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus.
In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What
are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit
its limits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14-Apr-2014, at 8:31 am, Biswajit Nayak <biswajit.nayak@inmobi.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Saumitra,
>> 
>> Could you please check the non-dfs usage. They also contribute to filling up the
disk space. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ~Biswa
>> -----oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o-----
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Saumitra <saumitra.official@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> We are running HDFS on 9-node hadoop cluster, hadoop version is 1.2.1. We are using
default HDFS block size.
>> 
>> We have noticed that disks of slaves are almost full. From name node’s status page
(namenode:50070), we could see that disks of live nodes are 90% full and DFS Used% in cluster
summary page  is ~1TB.
>> 
>> However hadoop dfs -dus / shows that file system size is merely 38GB. 38GB number
looks to be correct because we keep only few Hive tables and hadoop’s /tmp (distributed
cache and job outputs) in HDFS. All other data is cleaned up. I cross-checked this from hadoop
dfs -ls. Also I think that there is no internal fragmentation because the files in our Hive
tables are well-chopped in ~50MB chunks. Here are last few lines of hadoop fsck / -files -blocks
>> 
>> Status: HEALTHY
>>  Total size:	38086441332 B
>>  Total dirs:	232
>>  Total files:	802
>>  Total blocks (validated):	796 (avg. block size 47847288 B)
>>  Minimally replicated blocks:	796 (100.0 %)
>>  Over-replicated blocks:	0 (0.0 %)
>>  Under-replicated blocks:	6 (0.75376886 %)
>>  Mis-replicated blocks:		0 (0.0 %)
>>  Default replication factor:	2
>>  Average block replication:	3.0439699
>>  Corrupt blocks:		0
>>  Missing replicas:		6 (0.24762692 %)
>>  Number of data-nodes:		9
>>  Number of racks:		1
>> FSCK ended at Sun Apr 13 19:49:23 UTC 2014 in 135 milliseconds
>> 
>> 
>> My question is that why disks of slaves are getting full even though there are only
few files in DFS?
>> 
>> 
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding
to this email and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper
and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay
in its receipt.
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________
> The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain
confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance
on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email
and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --Regards
>   Sandeep Nemuri


Mime
View raw message