[jira] [Comment Edited] (HDFS-14090) RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17230612#comment-17230612
]
Yiqun Lin edited comment on HDFS-14090 at 11/12/20, 2:38 PM:
-
Hi [~fengnanli], three nits for the latest patch:
1 Will look good to rename dfs.federation.router.fairness.handler.count.NS to
dfs.federation.router.fairness.handler.count.EXAMPLENAMESERVICE.
2 {noformat}
smaller or equal to the total number of router handlers; if the special
*concurrent* is not specified, the sum of all configured values must be
strictly smaller than the router handlers thus the left will be allocated
to the concurrent calls.
{noformat}
Can we mention related setting ''strictly smaller than the router handlers
(dfs.federation.router.handler.count)...
3
Can you fix related failed unit test?
|hadoop.hdfs.server.federation.router.TestRBFConfigFields|
Others look good to me.
was (Author: linyiqun):
Hi [~fengnanli], two nits for the latest patch:
{noformat}
smaller or equal to the total number of router handlers; if the special
*concurrent* is not specified, the sum of all configured values must be
strictly smaller than the router handlers thus the left will be allocated
to the concurrent calls.
{noformat}
Can we mention related setting ''strictly smaller than the router handlers
(dfs.federation.router.handler.count)...
Can you fix related failed unit test?
|hadoop.hdfs.server.federation.router.TestRBFConfigFields|
Others look good to me.
> RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14090
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
>Reporter: CR Hota
>Assignee: Fengnan Li
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.001.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.002.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.003.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.004.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.005.patch,
> HDFS-14090.006.patch, HDFS-14090.007.patch, HDFS-14090.008.patch,
> HDFS-14090.009.patch, HDFS-14090.010.patch, HDFS-14090.011.patch,
> HDFS-14090.012.patch, HDFS-14090.013.patch, HDFS-14090.014.patch,
> HDFS-14090.015.patch, HDFS-14090.016.patch, HDFS-14090.017.patch,
> HDFS-14090.018.patch, HDFS-14090.019.patch, HDFS-14090.020.patch,
> HDFS-14090.021.patch, HDFS-14090.022.patch, HDFS-14090.023.patch,
> HDFS-14090.024.patch, RBF_ Isolation design.pdf
>
>
> Router is a gateway to underlying name nodes. Gateway architectures, should
> help minimize impact of clients connecting to healthy clusters vs unhealthy
> clusters.
> For example - If there are 2 name nodes downstream, and one of them is
> heavily loaded with calls spiking rpc queue times, due to back pressure the
> same with start reflecting on the router. As a result of this, clients
> connecting to healthy/faster name nodes will also slow down as same rpc queue
> is maintained for all calls at the router layer. Essentially the same IPC
> thread pool is used by router to connect to all name nodes.
> Currently router uses one single rpc queue for all calls. Lets discuss how we
> can change the architecture and add some throttling logic for
> unhealthy/slow/overloaded name nodes.
> One way could be to read from current call queue, immediately identify
> downstream name node and maintain a separate queue for each underlying name
> node. Another simpler way is to maintain some sort of rate limiter configured
> for each name node and let routers drop/reject/send error requests after
> certain threshold.
> This won’t be a simple change as router’s ‘Server’ layer would need redesign
> and implementation. Currently this layer is the same as name node.
> Opening this ticket to discuss, design and implement this feature.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (HDFS-14090) RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17230612#comment-17230612
]
Yiqun Lin edited comment on HDFS-14090 at 11/12/20, 1:07 PM:
-
Hi [~fengnanli], two nits for the latest patch:
{noformat}
smaller or equal to the total number of router handlers; if the special
*concurrent* is not specified, the sum of all configured values must be
strictly smaller than the router handlers thus the left will be allocated
to the concurrent calls.
{noformat}
Can we mention related setting ''strictly smaller than the router handlers
(dfs.federation.router.handler.count)...
Can you fix related failed unit test?
|hadoop.hdfs.server.federation.router.TestRBFConfigFields|
Others look good to me.
was (Author: linyiqun):
Hi [~fengnanli], two nits for the latest patch:
{noformat}
smaller or equal to the total number of router handlers; if the special
*concurrent* is not specified, the sum of all configured values must be
strictly smaller than the router handlers thus the left will be allocated
to the concurrent calls.
{noformat}
Can we mention related setting ''strictly smaller than the router handlers
(dfs.federation.router.handler.count)...
Can you fix related failed unit test?
Others look good to me.
> RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14090
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
>Reporter: CR Hota
>Assignee: Fengnan Li
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.001.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.002.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.003.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.004.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.005.patch,
> HDFS-14090.006.patch, HDFS-14090.007.patch, HDFS-14090.008.patch,
> HDFS-14090.009.patch, HDFS-14090.010.patch, HDFS-14090.011.patch,
> HDFS-14090.012.patch, HDFS-14090.013.patch, HDFS-14090.014.patch,
> HDFS-14090.015.patch, HDFS-14090.016.patch, HDFS-14090.017.patch,
> HDFS-14090.018.patch, HDFS-14090.019.patch, HDFS-14090.020.patch,
> HDFS-14090.021.patch, HDFS-14090.022.patch, HDFS-14090.023.patch,
> HDFS-14090.024.patch, RBF_ Isolation design.pdf
>
>
> Router is a gateway to underlying name nodes. Gateway architectures, should
> help minimize impact of clients connecting to healthy clusters vs unhealthy
> clusters.
> For example - If there are 2 name nodes downstream, and one of them is
> heavily loaded with calls spiking rpc queue times, due to back pressure the
> same with start reflecting on the router. As a result of this, clients
> connecting to healthy/faster name nodes will also slow down as same rpc queue
> is maintained for all calls at the router layer. Essentially the same IPC
> thread pool is used by router to connect to all name nodes.
> Currently router uses one single rpc queue for all calls. Lets discuss how we
> can change the architecture and add some throttling logic for
> unhealthy/slow/overloaded name nodes.
> One way could be to read from current call queue, immediately identify
> downstream name node and maintain a separate queue for each underlying name
> node. Another simpler way is to maintain some sort of rate limiter configured
> for each name node and let routers drop/reject/send error requests after
> certain threshold.
> This won’t be a simple change as router’s ‘Server’ layer would need redesign
> and implementation. Currently this layer is the same as name node.
> Opening this ticket to discuss, design and implement this feature.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (HDFS-14090) RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17230394#comment-17230394
]
Fengnan Li edited comment on HDFS-14090 at 11/12/20, 7:07 AM:
--
Uploaded [^HDFS-14090.024.patch] to add configs for it.
I feel like there should be more optimization about how this config can be
specified and be made less verbose (like specify certain default values so we
don't need to specify all nameservices), but I cannot come up with a clean way
of doing this now. Will revisit when I start tackle the dynamic allocations.
Thanks!
was (Author: fengnanli):
Uploaded [^HDFS-14090.024.patch] to add configs for it.
I feel like there should be more optimization about how this config can be
specified but make it less verbose (like specify certain default values so we
don't need to specify all nameservices), but I cannot come up with a clean way
of doing this now. Will revisit when I start tackle the dynamic allocations.
Thanks!
> RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14090
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
>Reporter: CR Hota
>Assignee: Fengnan Li
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.001.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.002.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.003.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.004.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.005.patch,
> HDFS-14090.006.patch, HDFS-14090.007.patch, HDFS-14090.008.patch,
> HDFS-14090.009.patch, HDFS-14090.010.patch, HDFS-14090.011.patch,
> HDFS-14090.012.patch, HDFS-14090.013.patch, HDFS-14090.014.patch,
> HDFS-14090.015.patch, HDFS-14090.016.patch, HDFS-14090.017.patch,
> HDFS-14090.018.patch, HDFS-14090.019.patch, HDFS-14090.020.patch,
> HDFS-14090.021.patch, HDFS-14090.022.patch, HDFS-14090.023.patch,
> HDFS-14090.024.patch, RBF_ Isolation design.pdf
>
>
> Router is a gateway to underlying name nodes. Gateway architectures, should
> help minimize impact of clients connecting to healthy clusters vs unhealthy
> clusters.
> For example - If there are 2 name nodes downstream, and one of them is
> heavily loaded with calls spiking rpc queue times, due to back pressure the
> same with start reflecting on the router. As a result of this, clients
> connecting to healthy/faster name nodes will also slow down as same rpc queue
> is maintained for all calls at the router layer. Essentially the same IPC
> thread pool is used by router to connect to all name nodes.
> Currently router uses one single rpc queue for all calls. Lets discuss how we
> can change the architecture and add some throttling logic for
> unhealthy/slow/overloaded name nodes.
> One way could be to read from current call queue, immediately identify
> downstream name node and maintain a separate queue for each underlying name
> node. Another simpler way is to maintain some sort of rate limiter configured
> for each name node and let routers drop/reject/send error requests after
> certain threshold.
> This won’t be a simple change as router’s ‘Server’ layer would need redesign
> and implementation. Currently this layer is the same as name node.
> Opening this ticket to discuss, design and implement this feature.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (HDFS-14090) RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17227189#comment-17227189
]
Yiqun Lin edited comment on HDFS-14090 at 11/6/20, 6:58 AM:
Hi [~fengnanli], some minor comments from me:
1. I see here we introduce CONCURRENT_NS for concurrent call, why not acquire
permit to corresponding ns instead of?
2. Current description of setting hdfs-rbf-default.xml can describe more. At
least, we need to mention:
* The setting name for how to configure handler count for each ns, also
include CONCURRENT_NS ns.
* The sum of dedicated handler count should be less than value of
dfs.federation.router.handler.count
3. It would be better to add this improvement in HDFSRouterFederation.md.
Comment #2 and #3 can be addressed in a follow-up JIRA, :).
was (Author: linyiqun):
Hi [~fengnanli], some minor comments from me:
1. I see here we introduce CONCURRENT_NS for concurrent call, why not acquire
permit to corresponding ns instead of?
2. Current description of setting hdfs-rbf-default.xml can describe more. At
least, we need to mention:
* The setting name for how to configure handler count for each ns, also
include CONCURRENT_NS ns.
* The sum of dedicated handler count should be less than value of
dfs.federation.router.handler.count
3. It would be better to add this improvement in HDFSRouterFederation.md.
> RBF: Improved isolation for downstream name nodes. {Static}
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14090
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14090
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
>Reporter: CR Hota
>Assignee: Fengnan Li
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.001.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.002.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.003.patch,
> HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.004.patch, HDFS-14090-HDFS-13891.005.patch,
> HDFS-14090.006.patch, HDFS-14090.007.patch, HDFS-14090.008.patch,
> HDFS-14090.009.patch, HDFS-14090.010.patch, HDFS-14090.011.patch,
> HDFS-14090.012.patch, HDFS-14090.013.patch, HDFS-14090.014.patch,
> HDFS-14090.015.patch, HDFS-14090.016.patch, HDFS-14090.017.patch,
> HDFS-14090.018.patch, HDFS-14090.019.patch, HDFS-14090.020.patch,
> HDFS-14090.021.patch, HDFS-14090.022.patch, HDFS-14090.023.patch, RBF_
> Isolation design.pdf
>
>
> Router is a gateway to underlying name nodes. Gateway architectures, should
> help minimize impact of clients connecting to healthy clusters vs unhealthy
> clusters.
> For example - If there are 2 name nodes downstream, and one of them is
> heavily loaded with calls spiking rpc queue times, due to back pressure the
> same with start reflecting on the router. As a result of this, clients
> connecting to healthy/faster name nodes will also slow down as same rpc queue
> is maintained for all calls at the router layer. Essentially the same IPC
> thread pool is used by router to connect to all name nodes.
> Currently router uses one single rpc queue for all calls. Lets discuss how we
> can change the architecture and add some throttling logic for
> unhealthy/slow/overloaded name nodes.
> One way could be to read from current call queue, immediately identify
> downstream name node and maintain a separate queue for each underlying name
> node. Another simpler way is to maintain some sort of rate limiter configured
> for each name node and let routers drop/reject/send error requests after
> certain threshold.
> This won’t be a simple change as router’s ‘Server’ layer would need redesign
> and implementation. Currently this layer is the same as name node.
> Opening this ticket to discuss, design and implement this feature.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
