hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brahma Reddy Battula (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (HDFS-9902) Support different values of dfs.datanode.du.reserved per storage type
Date Mon, 02 May 2016 07:14:13 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9902?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

Brahma Reddy Battula updated HDFS-9902:
    Attachment: HDFS-9902-03.patch

[~arpitagarwal] and [~xyao] thanks a lot for looking into this issue...Uploaded the patch
to address your comments..

> Support different values of dfs.datanode.du.reserved per storage type
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HDFS-9902
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9902
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: datanode
>    Affects Versions: 2.7.2
>            Reporter: Pan Yuxuan
>            Assignee: Brahma Reddy Battula
>         Attachments: HDFS-9902-02.patch, HDFS-9902-03.patch, HDFS-9902.patch
> Now Hadoop support different storage type for DISK, SSD, ARCHIVE and RAM_DISK, but they
share one configuration dfs.datanode.du.reserved.
> The DISK size may be several TB and the RAM_DISK size may be only several tens of GB.
> The problem is that when I configure DISK and RAM_DISK (tmpfs) in the same DN, and I
set  dfs.datanode.du.reserved values 10GB, this will waste a lot of RAM_DISK size. 
> Since the usage of RAM_DISK can be 100%, so I don't want dfs.datanode.du.reserved configured
for DISK impacts the usage of tmpfs.
> So can we make a new configuration for RAM_DISK or just skip this configuration for RAM_DISK?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message