[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9902?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15266943#comment-15266943 ]
Arpit Agarwal commented on HDFS-9902: ------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing the feedback [~brahmareddy]. Looks like there is a typo in the documentation (should read _If specific storage type reservation is configured_). Also suggest replacing _considered_ with _used_: {code} 327 'dfs.datanode.du.reserved.ram_disk'. If specific storage type reservation is configured 328 then dfs.datanode.du.reserved will be considered. {code} +1 with this addressed. > Support different values of dfs.datanode.du.reserved per storage type > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HDFS-9902 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9902 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: datanode > Affects Versions: 2.7.2 > Reporter: Pan Yuxuan > Assignee: Brahma Reddy Battula > Attachments: HDFS-9902-02.patch, HDFS-9902-03.patch, HDFS-9902.patch > > > Now Hadoop support different storage type for DISK, SSD, ARCHIVE and > RAM_DISK, but they share one configuration dfs.datanode.du.reserved. > The DISK size may be several TB and the RAM_DISK size may be only several > tens of GB. > The problem is that when I configure DISK and RAM_DISK (tmpfs) in the same > DN, and I set dfs.datanode.du.reserved values 10GB, this will waste a lot of > RAM_DISK size. > Since the usage of RAM_DISK can be 100%, so I don't want > dfs.datanode.du.reserved configured for DISK impacts the usage of tmpfs. > So can we make a new configuration for RAM_DISK or just skip this > configuration for RAM_DISK? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org