hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Resolved] (HDFS-1379) Multihoming brokenness in HDFS
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2014 01:54:25 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-1379?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze resolved HDFS-1379.

    Resolution: Not a Problem

I believe this is not a problem anymore after other JIRAs such as HDFS-4963.  Please feel
free to reopen this if it is not the case.  Resolving ...

> Multihoming brokenness in HDFS
> ------------------------------
>                 Key: HDFS-1379
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-1379
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: hdfs-client, namenode
>    Affects Versions: 0.20.1
>         Environment: Multi-homed namenode and datanodes. hadoop-0.20.1 (cloudera distribution
on linux)
>            Reporter: Matthew Byng-Maddick
> We have a setup where - because we only have a very few machines (4 x 16 core) we're
looking at co-locating namenodes and datanodes. We also have front-end and back-end networks.
Set-up is something like:
> * machine1
> ** front-end
> ** back-end
> * machine2
> ** front-end
> ** back-end
> * machine3
> ** front-end
> ** back-end
> * machine4
> ** front-end
> ** back-end
> On each, the property *slave.host.name* is configured with the 192. address, (the *.dns.interface
settings don't actually seem to help, but that's a separate problem), and the *dfs.datanode.address*
is bound to the 192.168.24.x address on :50010, similarly the *dfs.datanode.ipc.address* is
bound there.
> In order to get efficient use of our machines, we bring up a namenode on one of them
(this then rsyncs the latest namenode fsimage etc) by bringing up a VIP on each side (we use
the 10.18.80.x side for monitoring, rather than actual hadoop comms), and binding the namenode
to that - on the inside this is
> The namenode now knows about 4 datanodes - These datanodes know
how they're bound. However, when the datanode is telling an external hdfs client where to
store the blocks, it gives out as one of the addresses (despite the datanode
not being bound there) - because that's where the datanode->namenode RPC comes from.
> This is wrong because if you've bound the datanode explicitly (using *dfs.datanode.address*)
then that's should be the only address the namenode can give out (it's reasonable, given your
comms model not to support NAT between clients and data slaves). If you bind it to * then
your normal rules for slave.host.name, dfs.datanode.dns.interface etc should take precedence.
> This may already be fixed in later releases than 0.20.1 - but if it isn't it should probably
be - you explicitly allow binding of the datanode addresses - it's unreasonable to expect
that comms to the datanode will always come from those addresses - especially in multi-homed
environments (and separating traffic out by network - especially when dealing with large volumes
of data) is useful.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message