[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8833?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14659112#comment-14659112
]
Jing Zhao commented on HDFS-8833:
---------------------------------
Then why not just hardcode one schema for phase 1 (which is the current
implementation), and leave all the extension to phase 2? As you mentioned most
existing systems hard code their schema and cell size. Why do we want to occupy
multiple bits in INodeFile header and later still use xattr as extension?
> Erasure coding: store EC schema and cell size in INodeFile and eliminate
> notion of EC zones
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-8833
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8833
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: namenode
> Affects Versions: HDFS-7285
> Reporter: Zhe Zhang
> Assignee: Zhe Zhang
>
> We have [discussed |
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7285?focusedCommentId=14357754&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14357754]
> storing EC schema with files instead of EC zones and recently revisited the
> discussion under HDFS-8059.
> As a recap, the _zone_ concept has severe limitations including renaming and
> nested configuration. Those limitations are valid in encryption for security
> reasons and it doesn't make sense to carry them over in EC.
> This JIRA aims to store EC schema and cell size on {{INodeFile}} level. For
> simplicity, we should first implement it as an xattr and consider memory
> optimizations (such as moving it to file header) as a follow-on. We should
> also disable changing EC policy on a non-empty file / dir in the first phase.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
