> > I tried your suggested setting and forced GC from Jconsole and once it > crept up nothing was freeing up. >
That is very surprising. If possible, take a live dump when namenode starts up (when memory used is low) and when namenode memory consumption has gone up considerably, closer to the heap limit. BTW, are you running with that configuration - with younggen size set to smaller size? > > So just food for thought: > > You said "average file name size is 32 bytes". Well most of my data sits in > > /user/hive/warehouse/ > Then I have a tables with partitions. > > Does it make sense to just move this to "/u/h/w"? > In the directory structure in the namenode memory, there is one inode for user, hive and warehouse. So it would save only couple of bytes. However on fsimage in older releases, /user/hive/warehouse is repeated for every file. This in the later release has been optimized. But these optimizations affect only the fsimage and not the memory consumed on the namenode. > > Will I be saving 400,000,000 bytes of memory if I do? > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Suresh Srinivas <sur...@hortonworks.com > >wrote: > > > I do not follow what you mean here. > > > > > Even when I forced a GC it cleared 0% memory. > > Is this with new younggen setting? Because earlier, based on the > > calculation I posted, you need ~11G in old generation. With 6G as the > > default younggen size, you actually had just enough memory to fit the > > namespace in oldgen. Hence you might not have seen Full GC freeing up > > enough memory. > > > > Have you tried Full GC with 1G youngen size have you tried this? I > supsect > > you would see lot more memory freeing up. > > > > > One would think that since the entire NameNode image is stored in > memory > > that the heap would not need to grow beyond that > > Namenode image that you see during checkpointing is the size of file > > written after serializing file system namespace in memory. This is not > what > > is directly stored in namenode memory. Namenode stores data structures > that > > corresponds to file system directory tree and block locations. Out of > this > > only file system directory is serialized and written to fsimage. Blocks > > locations are not. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > I am not sure GC had a factor. Even when I forced a GC it cleared 0% > > > memory. One would think that since the entire NameNode image is stored > in > > > memory that the heap would not need to grow beyond that, but that sure > > does > > > not seem to be the case. a 5GB image starts off using 10GB of memory > and > > > after "burn in" it seems to use about 15GB memory. > > > > > > So really we say "the name node data has to fit in memory" but what we > > > really mean is "the name node data must fit in memory 3x" > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Suresh Srinivas < > sur...@hortonworks.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > You did free up lot of old generation with reducing young generation, > > > > right? The extra 5G of RAM for the old generation should have helped. > > > > > > > > Based on my calculation, for the current number of objects you have, > > you > > > > need roughly: > > > > 12G of total heap with young generation size of 1G. This assumes the > > > > average file name size is 32 bytes. > > > > > > > > In later releases (>= 0.20.204), several memory optimization and > > startup > > > > optimizations have been done. It should help you as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Edward Capriolo < > > edlinuxg...@gmail.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > So it turns out the issue was just the size of the filesystem. > > > > > 2012-12-27 16:37:22,390 WARN > > > > > org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.SecondaryNameNode: > Checkpoint > > > > done. > > > > > New Image Size: 4,354,340,042 > > > > > > > > > > Basically if the NN image size hits ~ 5,000,000,000 you get f'ed. > So > > > you > > > > > need about 3x ram as your FSImage size. If you do not have enough > you > > > > die a > > > > > slow death. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Suresh Srinivas < > > > sur...@hortonworks.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Do not have access to my computer. Based on reading the previous > > > > email, I > > > > > > do not see any thing suspicious on the list of objects in the > histo > > > > live > > > > > > dump. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to hear from you about if it continued to grow. One > > > > instance > > > > > > of this I had seen in the past was related to weak reference > > related > > > to > > > > > > socket objects. I do not see that happening here though. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from phone > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Edward Capriolo < > > edlinuxg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tried this.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NameNode is still Ruining my Xmas on its slow death march to > OOM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://imagebin.org/240453 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Suresh Srinivas < > > > > > > sur...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -XX:NewSize=1G -XX:MaxNewSize=1G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://hortonworks.com/download/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://hortonworks.com/download/ > > > -- http://hortonworks.com/download/
