Nice Feature, Great work Guys. Looking forward getting in this, as already YARN
federation is in.
At first glance I have few questions
i) Could have a consolidated patch for better review..?
ii) Hoping "Federation Metrics" and "Federation UI" will be included.
iii) do we've RPC benchmarks ?
iv) As of now "dfs.federation.router.rpc.enable" and
"dfs.federation.router.store.enable" made "true", does we need to keep this
configs..? since without this router might not be useful..?
iv) bq. The rest of the options are documented in [hdfs-default.xml]
I feel, better to document all the configurations. I see, there are so many,
how about document in tabular format..?
v) Downstream projects (Spark,HBASE,HIVE..) integration testing..? looks you
mentioned, is that enough..?
v) mvn install (and package) is failing with following error
[INFO] Adding ignore: *
[WARNING] Rule 1: org.apache.maven.plugins.enforcer.BanDuplicateClasses failed
with message:
Duplicate classes found:
Found in:
org.apache.hadoop:hadoop-client-minicluster:jar:3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT:compile
org.apache.hadoop:hadoop-client-runtime:jar:3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT:compile
Duplicate classes:
org/apache/hadoop/shaded/org/apache/curator/framework/api/DeleteBuilder.class
org/apache/hadoop/shaded/org/apache/curator/framework/CuratorFramework.class
I added "hadoop-client-minicluster" to ignore list to get success
hadoop\hadoop-client-modules\hadoop-client-integration-tests\pom.xml
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.hadoop</groupId>
<artifactId>hadoop-annotations</artifactId>
<ignoreClasses>
<ignoreClass>*</ignoreClass>
</ignoreClasses>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.hadoop</groupId>
<artifactId>hadoop-client-minicluster</artifactId>
<ignoreClasses>
<ignoreClass>*</ignoreClass>
</ignoreClasses>
</dependency>
Please correct me If I am wrong.
--Brahma Reddy Battula
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Douglas [mailto:cdoug...@apache.org]
Sent: 25 August 2017 06:37
To: Andrew Wang
Cc: Iñigo Goiri; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; su...@apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Merge HDFS-10467 to (Router-based federation) trunk
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Do you mind holding this until 3.1? Same reasoning as for the other
> branch merge proposals, we're simply too late in the 3.0.0 release cycle.
That wouldn't be too dire.
That said, this has the same design and impact as YARN federation.
Specifically, it sits almost entirely outside core HDFS, so it will not affect
clusters running without R-BF.
Merging would allow the two router implementations to converge on a common
backend, which has started with HADOOP-14741 [1]. If the HDFS side only exists
in 3.1, then that work would complicate maintenance of YARN in 3.0.x, which may
require bug fixes as it stabilizes.
Merging lowers costs for maintenance with a nominal risk to stability.
The feature is well tested, deployed, and actively developed. The modifications
to core HDFS [2] (~23k) are trivial.
So I'd still advocate for this particular merge on those merits. -C
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-14741
[2] git diff --diff-filter=M $(git merge-base apache/HDFS-10467
apache/trunk)..apache/HDFS-10467
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'd definitely support merging this to trunk. The implementation is
>> almost entirely outside of HDFS and, as Inigo detailed, has been
>> tested at scale. The branch is in a functional state with
>> documentation and tests. -C
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Iñigo Goiri <elgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > We would like to open a discussion on merging the Router-based
>> > Federation feature to trunk.
>> >
>> > Last week, there was a thread about which branches would go into
>> > 3.0 and given that YARN federation is going, this might be a good
>> > time for this to be merged too.
>> >
>> >
>> > We have been running "Router-based federation" in production for a year.
>> >
>> > Meanwhile, we have been releasing it in a feature branch
>> > (HDFS-10467
>> > [1])
>> > for a while.
>> >
>> > We are reasonably confident that the state of the branch is about
>> > to meet the criteria to be merged onto trunk.
>> >
>> >
>> > *Feature*:
>> >
>> > This feature aggregates multiple namespaces into a single one
>> > transparently to the user.
>> >
>> > It has a similar architecture to YARN federation (YARN-2915).
>> >
>> > It consists on Routers that handle requests from the clients and
>> > forwards them to the right subcluster and exposes the same API as
>> > the Namenode.
>> >
>> > Currently we use a mount table (similar to ViewFs) but can be
>> > replaced by other approaches.
>> >
>> > The Routers share their state in a State Store.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The main advantage is that clients interact with the Routers as
>> > they were Namenode so there is no changes in the client required
>> > other than poiting to the right address.
>> >
>> > In addition, all the management is moved to the server side so
>> > changes to the Mount Table can be done without having to sync the
>> > clients (pull/push).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Status*:
>> >
>> > The branch already contains all the features required to work
>> > end-to-end.
>> >
>> > There are a couple open JIRAs that would be required for the merged
>> > (i.e., Web UI) but they should be finished soon.
>> >
>> > We have been running it in production for the last year and we have
>> > a paper with some of the details of our production deployment [2].
>> >
>> > We have 4 production deployments with the largest one spanning more
>> > than 20k servers across 6 subclusters.
>> >
>> > In addition, the guys at LinkedIn had started testing Router-based
>> > federation and they will be adding security to the branch.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The modifications to the rest of HDFS are minimal:
>> >
>> > - Changed visibility for some methods (e.g., MiniDFSCluster)
>> > - Added some utilities to extract addresses
>> > - Modified hdfs and hdfs.cmd to start the Router and manager the
>> > federation
>> > - Modified hdfs-default.xml
>> >
>> > Everything else is self-contained in a federation package.
>> >
>> > In addition, all the functionality is in the Router so it’s
>> > disabled by default.
>> >
>> > Even when enabled, there is no impact for regular HDFS and it would
>> > only require to configure the trust between the Namenode and the
>> > Router once security is enabled.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have been continuously rebasing the feature branch (updated up to
>> > 1 week
>> > ago) so the merge should be a straightforward cherry-pick.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Problems*:
>> >
>> > The problems I’m aware of are the following:
>> >
>> > - We implement ClientProtocol so anytime a new method is added
>> > there, we
>> > would need to add it to the Router. However, it’s
>> > straightforward to add
>> > unimplemented methods.
>> > - There is some argument about naming the feature as “Router-based
>> > federation” but I’m open for better names.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Credits*:
>> >
>> > I’d like to thank the people at Microsoft (specially, Jason,
>> > Ricardo, Chris, Subru, Jakob, Carlo and Giovanni), Twitter (Ming
>> > and Gera), and LinkedIn (Zhe, Erik and Konstantin) for the discussion and
>> > the ideas.
>> >
>> > Special thanks to Chris Douglas for the thorough reviews!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please look through the branch; feedback is welcome. Thanks!
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Inigo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10467
>> >
>> > [2] https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc17/technical-
>> > sessions/presentation/misra
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
