[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2576?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12562829#action_12562829
]
Hadoop QA commented on HADOOP-2576:
-----------------------------------
+1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12374104/HADOOP-2576.patch
against trunk revision 614721.
@author +1. The patch does not contain any @author tags.
javadoc +1. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.
javac +1. The applied patch does not generate any new compiler warnings.
findbugs +1. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs warnings.
core tests +1. The patch passed core unit tests.
contrib tests +1. The patch passed contrib unit tests.
Test results:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/1688/testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/1688/artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Checkstyle results:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/1688/artifact/trunk/build/test/checkstyle-errors.html
Console output:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/1688/console
This message is automatically generated.
> Namenode performance degradation over time
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-2576
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2576
> Project: Hadoop Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: dfs
> Affects Versions: 0.16.0
> Reporter: Christian Kunz
> Assignee: Raghu Angadi
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 0.16.0
>
> Attachments: HADOOP-2576.patch, HADOOP-2576.patch, HADOOP-2576.patch,
> HADOOP-2576.patch, HADOOP-2576.patch
>
>
> We have a cluster running the same applications again and again with a high
> turnover of files.
> The performance of these applications seem to be correlated to the lifetime
> of the namenode:
> After starting the namenode, the applications need increasingly more time to
> complete, with about 50% more time after 1 week.
> During that time the namenode average cpu usage increases from typically 10%
> to 30%, memory usage nearly doubles (although the average amount of data on
> dfs stays the same), and the average load factor increases by a factor of 2-3
> (although not significantly high, <2).
> When looking at the namenode and datanode logs, I see a lot of asks to delete
> blocks coming from the namenode for blocks not in the blockmap of the
> datanodes, repeatedly for the same blocks.
> When I counted the number of blocks asked by the namenode to be deleted, I
> noticed a noticeable increase with the lifetime of the namenode (a factor of
> 2-3 after 1 week).
> This makes me wonder whether the namenode does not purge the list of invalid
> blocks from non-existing blocks.
> But independently, the namenode has a degradation issue.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
