[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16867863#comment-16867863
]
Íñigo Goiri commented on HDFS-14579:
------------------------------------
We tried in the past to improve the DNS caching and so on but this is Windows
and the DNS is our internal datacenter one which is out of our control.
For some reason (out of our control) they configured it in this way and this is
a pain at this point.
I understand this is not a common use case so I'm fine keeping the parallel DNS
resolution internally.
> In refreshNodes, avoid performing a DNS lookup while holding the write lock
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-14579
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14579
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 3.3.0
> Reporter: Stephen O'Donnell
> Assignee: Stephen O'Donnell
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14579.001.patch
>
>
> When refreshNodes is called on a large cluster, or a cluster where DNS is not
> performing well, it can cause the namenode to hang for a long time. This is
> because the refreshNodes operation holds the global write lock while it is
> running. Most of refreshNodes code is simple and hence fast, but
> unfortunately it performs a DNS lookup for each host in the cluster while the
> lock is held.
> Right now, it calls:
> {code}
> public void refreshNodes(final Configuration conf) throws IOException {
> refreshHostsReader(conf);
> namesystem.writeLock();
> try {
> refreshDatanodes();
> countSoftwareVersions();
> } finally {
> namesystem.writeUnlock();
> }
> }
> {code}
> The line refreshHostsReader(conf); reads the new config file and does a DNS
> lookup on each entry - the write lock is not held here. Then the main work is
> done here:
> {code}
> private void refreshDatanodes() {
> final Map<String, DatanodeDescriptor> copy;
> synchronized (this) {
> copy = new HashMap<>(datanodeMap);
> }
> for (DatanodeDescriptor node : copy.values()) {
> // Check if not include.
> if (!hostConfigManager.isIncluded(node)) {
> node.setDisallowed(true);
> } else {
> long maintenanceExpireTimeInMS =
> hostConfigManager.getMaintenanceExpirationTimeInMS(node);
> if (node.maintenanceNotExpired(maintenanceExpireTimeInMS)) {
> datanodeAdminManager.startMaintenance(
> node, maintenanceExpireTimeInMS);
> } else if (hostConfigManager.isExcluded(node)) {
> datanodeAdminManager.startDecommission(node);
> } else {
> datanodeAdminManager.stopMaintenance(node);
> datanodeAdminManager.stopDecommission(node);
> }
> }
> node.setUpgradeDomain(hostConfigManager.getUpgradeDomain(node));
> }
> }
> {code}
> All the isIncluded(), isExcluded() methods call node.getResolvedAddress()
> which does the DNS lookup. We could probably change things to perform all the
> DNS lookups outside of the write lock, and then take the lock and process the
> nodes. Also change or overload isIncluded() etc to take the inetAddress
> rather than the datanode descriptor.
> It would not shorten the time the operation takes to run overall, but it
> would move the long duration out of the write lock and avoid blocking the
> namenode for the entire time.
--
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
