[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Anu Engineer updated HDDS-330:
------------------------------
Labels: alpha2 (was: )
> Ozone: number of keys/values/buckets to KSMMetrics
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDDS-330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-330
> Project: Hadoop Distributed Data Store
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Ozone Manager
> Reporter: Elek, Marton
> Priority: Major
> Labels: alpha2
>
> During my last ozone test with 100 node ozone cluster I see a problem to
> track how many keys/volumes/buckets do I have.
> I opened this jira to start a discussion about extending KSM metrics (but let
> me know if this is already planned somewhere else) and add number of
> keys/volumes/buckets to the metrics interface.
> These counters could be added to anywhere else (for example as a client call)
> but I think it is an important number and would be worth to monitor it.
> I see multiple ways to achieve it:
> 1. Extend the `org.apache.hadoop.utils.MetadaStore` class with an additional
> count() method. As I know there is no easy way to implement it with leveldb
> but with rocksdb there is a posibility to get the _estimated_ number of keys.
> On the other hand KSM stores volumes/buckets/keys in the same db, so we can't
> use it without splitting the ksm.db to separated dbs.
> 2. Create a background task to iterate over all the keys and count ozone
> key/volume/bucket numbers:
> pro: it would be independent from the existing program flow
> con: doesn't provided up-to-date information.
> con: it uses more resources to scan the whole db frequently
> 3. During the startup we can iterate over the whole ksm.db and count the
> current metrics, and later we can update the numbers in case of new
> create/delete calls. It uses additional resources during the startup (should
> be checked how much time is to parse a db with millions of keys) but after
> that it would be fast. Also we can introduce new confguration variables to
> skip the initial scan. In that case the numbers will be valid only from the
> last restart but the startup would be fast.
> I suggest to use the 3rd approach, could you please comment about your
> opinion?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
