[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1470?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12502446
]
Hairong Kuang commented on HADOOP-1470:
---------------------------------------
> Finally, I think it's okay to throw an exception in the client when the
> configured blocksize is not a multiple of the configured bytesPerSum. So, if
> we think it will considerably simplify implementation, I don't see a problem
> with adding this restriction.
Yes, I agree that this restriction would greatly simplify this issue. For
backward compatability, could we enforce this during current dfs ->
block-level-crc dfs upgrade?
> Rework FSInputChecker and FSOutputSummer to support checksum code sharing
> between ChecksumFileSystem and block level crc dfs
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-1470
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1470
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: fs
> Affects Versions: 0.12.3
> Reporter: Hairong Kuang
> Assignee: Hairong Kuang
> Fix For: 0.14.0
>
>
> Comment from Doug in HADOOP-1134:
> I'd prefer it if the CRC code could be shared with CheckSumFileSystem. In
> particular, it seems to me that FSInputChecker and FSOutputSummer could be
> extended to support pluggable sources and sinks for checksums, respectively,
> and DFSDataInputStream and DFSDataOutputStream could use these. Advantages of
> this are: (a) single implementation of checksum logic to debug and maintain;
> (b) keeps checksumming as close to possible to data generation and use. This
> patch computes checksums after data has been buffered, and validates them
> before it is buffered. We sometimes use large buffers and would like to guard
> against in-memory errors. The current checksum code catches a lot of such
> errors. So we should compute checksums after minimal buffering (just
> bytesPerChecksum, ideally) and validate them at the last possible moment
> (e.g., through the use of a small final buffer with a larger buffer behind
> it). I do not think this will significantly affect performance, and data
> integrity is a high priority.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
