[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2576?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12560529#action_12560529
]
Christian Kunz commented on HADOOP-2576:
----------------------------------------
I have 2 block reports now, one generated 1.5 days after namenode startup, and
one 4.5 days after. The build process did not yet slow down to a large extent,
but the block reports already indicate some leak:
The first block report lists about 20,000 blocks to delete from 14 nodes
the 2nd one about 140,000 blocks to delete from 10 nodes.
I checked the first block of the first node in the datanode log files: there
were about 40 futile attempts to delete that block (not found in blockMap).
> Namenode performance degradation over time
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-2576
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2576
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: dfs
> Affects Versions: 0.16.0
> Reporter: Christian Kunz
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 0.16.0
>
>
> 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.
