[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17100730#comment-17100730
]
Hudson commented on HDFS-14283:
---
SUCCESS: Integrated in Jenkins build Hadoop-trunk-Commit #18221 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-trunk-Commit/18221/])
HDFS-14283. DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica. Contributed by
(ayushsaxena: rev 7fddf4855e92627e11063318ac70f59e9316879c)
* (edit)
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/TestDFSInputStream.java
* (edit) hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/main/resources/hdfs-default.xml
* (edit)
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/DFSInputStream.java
* (edit)
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/protocol/LocatedBlock.java
* (edit)
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/client/HdfsClientConfigKeys.java
* (edit)
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/client/impl/DfsClientConf.java
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.3.1, 3.4.0
>
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch, HDFS-14283.008.patch,
> HDFS-14283.009.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17100699#comment-17100699
]
Ayush Saxena commented on HDFS-14283:
-
Committed to trunk.
Thanx everyone for the work here!!!
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch, HDFS-14283.008.patch,
> HDFS-14283.009.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17100539#comment-17100539
]
Ayush Saxena commented on HDFS-14283:
-
Thanx [~leosun08] for the update.
v009 LGTM +1
Will commit by today!!!
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch, HDFS-14283.008.patch,
> HDFS-14283.009.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17100025#comment-17100025
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 2m
19s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} dupname {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} No case conflicting files found. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
57s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 22m
16s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
38s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
58s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
5s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
18m 34s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
13s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} spotbugs {color} | {color:blue} 3m
3s{color} | {color:blue} Used deprecated FindBugs config; considering switching
to SpotBugs. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
20s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
23s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
57s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
32s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m
32s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
53s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
54s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
15m 3s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
8s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 1m 57s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}111m
48s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
37s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}201m 26s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | ClientAPI=1.40 ServerAPI=1.40 base:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/29238/artifact/out/Dockerfile
|
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-14283 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13002082/HDFS-14283.009.patch |
|
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17099850#comment-17099850
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 29m
36s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} dupname {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} No case conflicting files found. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 2m
47s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 37m
35s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 7m
55s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
46s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 5m
26s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
25m 8s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
23s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} spotbugs {color} | {color:blue} 2m
18s{color} | {color:blue} Used deprecated FindBugs config; considering
switching to SpotBugs. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
11s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
27s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
56s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
51s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
55s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
13m 49s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
14s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
16s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 2m 3s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}114m 54s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
44s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}258m 49s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestBootstrapAliasmap |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestHASafeMode |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestStandbyCheckpoints |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestPipelinesFailover |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestRetryCacheWithHA |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17099836#comment-17099836
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
the v009 patch updated description in hdfs-default.xml.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch, HDFS-14283.008.patch,
> HDFS-14283.009.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17099827#comment-17099827
]
Ayush Saxena commented on HDFS-14283:
-
Thanx [~leosun08] for the updates. The patch LGTM.
{code:java}
+If the cached replica of the datanode is preferred, set this value to true.
+Otherwise the replica of the closest datanode is preffered, set this value
to false.
{code}
Seems not making much sense grammatically, there is typo too in second
"preferred" Can change this to :
{code:java}
If true, the cached replica of the datanode is preferred else the replica
closest to client is preferred,
{code}
or only the if part shall also do for me.
Apart everything seems fine, If no further comments, Will try to conclude this
by tomorrow.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch, HDFS-14283.008.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17099652#comment-17099652
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
Thanx [~ayushtkn] for your suggestion.
{quote}
+ if (!deadNodes.containsKey(cachedLocs[i])
For this can we use dfsClient.getDeadNodes(this).containsKey(nodes[i])? it is
added as part of DeadDatanodeDetection feature. If yes, May be we can refactor
the if checks into a single method and use at both places.
{quote}
the v008 patch fixed this problem.
{quote}
return new DNAddrPair(chosenNode, targetAddr, storageType, block);
storagaeType will be null if using cachedReplica, is it ok?
{quote}
storagaeType is only used when NameNode choose DataNode.
It will not be used when Client establishes a connection with DataNode.
See Send and DataXceiver#readBlock parameters：
{code:java}
public void readBlock(final ExtendedBlock block,
final Token blockToken,
final String clientName,
final long blockOffset,
final long length,
final boolean sendChecksum,
final CachingStrategy cachingStrategy) throws IOException {
{code}
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch, HDFS-14283.008.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17099302#comment-17099302
]
Ayush Saxena commented on HDFS-14283:
-
Thanx [~leosun08] for the patch.
{code:java}
+ if (!deadNodes.containsKey(cachedLocs[i])
{code}
For this can we use {{dfsClient.getDeadNodes(this).containsKey(nodes[i])}}? it
is added as part of DeadDatanodeDetection feature. If yes, May be we can
refactor the if checks into a single method and use at both places.
{code:java}
return new DNAddrPair(chosenNode, targetAddr, storageType, block);
{code}
{{storagaeType}} will be {{null}} if using {{cachedReplica}}, is it ok?
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17098643#comment-17098643
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
The failed ut is unrelated to this patch. The Error info is OutOfMemory unable
to create new native thread.
I'm sorry for this patch for long.
hi [~smeng] [~weichiu] [~ayushtkn] [~elgoiri] Could you have time to take a
reivew for this patch? Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17098527#comment-17098527
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 2m
45s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} dupname {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} No case conflicting files found. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 1m
22s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 27m
7s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m
50s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
14s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
52s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
23m 43s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
32s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} spotbugs {color} | {color:blue} 3m
50s{color} | {color:blue} Used deprecated FindBugs config; considering
switching to SpotBugs. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 6m
47s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
26s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
8s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
54s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
58s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
15m 25s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
8s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
37s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 1m 59s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}142m 54s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
15s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}248m 5s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.blockmanagement.TestUnderReplicatedBlocks |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestLeaseRecovery |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestDeadNodeDetection |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestDFSStripedOutputStreamWithFailure |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestDFSUpgrade |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.TestBPOfferService |
| |
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17098446#comment-17098446
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
hi [~weichiu] [~ayushtkn] [~smeng] Could you help review this patch? Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch,
> HDFS-14283.006.patch, HDFS-14283.007.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17098359#comment-17098359
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 3m
50s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} dupname {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} No case conflicting files found. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
55s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 24m
7s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
46s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
57s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
12s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
19m 54s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
13s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} spotbugs {color} | {color:blue} 3m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Used deprecated FindBugs config; considering switching
to SpotBugs. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
19s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
22s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
53s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
29s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m
29s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
0m 52s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-hdfs-project: The patch generated 2 new +
66 unchanged - 0 fixed = 68 total (was 66) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
53s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} whitespace {color} | {color:red} 0m
0s{color} | {color:red} The patch has 1 line(s) that end in whitespace. Use git
apply --whitespace=fix <>. Refer https://git-scm.com/docs/git-apply
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
15m 29s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
9s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
31s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 1m 56s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}113m 59s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
54s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}208m 52s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestDFSClientRetries |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.TestNameNodeMXBean |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.TestBPOfferService |
\\
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16976114#comment-16976114
]
Ayush Saxena commented on HDFS-14283:
-
Thanx [~leosun08] for the patch.
Can you address [~smeng] comments?
Apart :
{code:java}
2902If the cached replica of the datanode is preferred, set this value
is true.
2903Otherwise the replica of the closest datanode is preffered, set
this value is false.
{code}
This sounds little grammatically incorrect, Can you have a check once.
[~weichiu] This JIRA got initiated from you, It would be good, if you can
also give a check once, to ensure we don't miss anything expected!!!
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16973771#comment-16973771
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
[~leosun08] Code looks good. Would you add test cases in {{TestDFSInputStream}}
to demonstrate: 1) when client sets {{dfs.client.read.use.cache.priority}} to
true, a cached block will be used; 2) when the config is set to false, it won't
affect the current behavior of the client without the patch. Thanks!
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16973050#comment-16973050
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
42s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} test4tests {color} | {color:red} 0m
0s{color} | {color:red} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please
list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
21s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 21m
39s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
49s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
58s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
7s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
17m 17s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
2s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
11s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
13s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
56s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
23s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m
23s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
0m 59s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-hdfs-project: The patch generated 1 new +
68 unchanged - 0 fixed = 69 total (was 68) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
59s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} whitespace {color} | {color:red} 0m
0s{color} | {color:red} The patch has 1 line(s) that end in whitespace. Use git
apply --whitespace=fix <>. Refer https://git-scm.com/docs/git-apply
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
2s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
14m 9s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
23s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
46s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m
55s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 91m 0s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
41s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}175m 42s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hdfs.TestFileChecksumCompositeCrc |
| | hadoop.hdfs.tools.TestDFSZKFailoverController |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestMultipleNNPortQOP |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestReconstructStripedFile |
| | hadoop.hdfs.tools.offlineEditsViewer.TestOfflineEditsViewer |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=19.03.4 Server=19.03.4 Image:yetus/hadoop:104ccca9169 |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-14283 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16972968#comment-16972968
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
Thanks for [~smeng] [~weichiu] for good suggestions.
i updated the patch and uploaded the v005 patch. Could you mind review it?
Thank you a lot. [~weichiu] [~smeng]
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch, HDFS-14283.005.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16972895#comment-16972895
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
[~leosun08] I discussed with [~weichiu]. I'm fine with ditching the sorting
logic on the server side so that we don't need to make any server side changed
in this patch. One reason is that in most cases there will only be one cached
replica for a block.
We will simply allow the client to prefer the cached replica with a
configuration option then.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16957759#comment-16957759
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
Thanks [~ayushtkn]. That's a fair point. I agree the ideal form would be to
implement the logic completely on the client (without touching the server), and
only add a client-side config property, so that interested clients can use this
feature without affecting others.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16957551#comment-16957551
]
Ayush Saxena commented on HDFS-14283:
-
[~smeng] whether to give priority to cached replica or not is client's choice
and would be a client configuration, specific to each client. If we have the
change in server, The client's who doesn't want to use this feature will also
get affected due to the sorting stuff at Namenode, which they won't even use.
This would impact the normal client's read performance.
Secondly, we can't use this config at Namenode to check, since this would be a
client config, that won't be specified at namenode and secondly, shouldn't be
universal for all client, if you enable it at namenode, irrespective of what
the client has configured, it will use value at namenode for server side
computation work. The client choice or configured value won't be sent to
namenode.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16957300#comment-16957300
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
47s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 19m
10s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
19s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
2s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
50s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
16m 11s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
30s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
42s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
22s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m
22s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
0m 58s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-hdfs-project: The patch generated 2 new +
590 unchanged - 0 fixed = 592 total (was 590) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
53s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} whitespace {color} | {color:red} 0m
0s{color} | {color:red} The patch has 1 line(s) that end in whitespace. Use git
apply --whitespace=fix <>. Refer https://git-scm.com/docs/git-apply
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m
2s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
13m 40s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
37s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
42s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m
51s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}101m 10s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
33s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}179m 32s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hdfs.TestBlockStoragePolicy |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.snapshot.TestRenameWithSnapshots |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=19.03.4 Server=19.03.4 Image:yetus/hadoop:104ccca9169 |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-14283 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12983761/HDFS-14283.004.patch |
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall
mvnsite unit shadedclient findbugs checkstyle xml |
| uname | Linux 8b5ea2938b69 4.15.0-58-generic #64-Ubuntu
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16957276#comment-16957276
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
[~ayushtkn] I agree that we should add a new client-side config to prefer
cached blocks, and default it to off (false). I see that rev 004 already added
it. Thanks [~leosun08].
But one more thing, would you also add it to hdfs-default.xml ?
I'm okay with sorting cached blocks on server. It doesn't seem we can sort it
on client side easily since the client might not have the distance information
of each node (CMIIW).
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16957217#comment-16957217
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
Thanx [~ayushtkn] [~hexiaoqiao] for your good suggestions.
I added the switch for prefering cached replica and turned it off by default.
Could you mind review the v004 patch? Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch, HDFS-14283.004.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16955428#comment-16955428
]
Ayush Saxena commented on HDFS-14283:
-
Thanx [~leosun08] for the patch. Had a quick look on the idea, Couldn't check
the whole code, Some concerns :
* I think the feature to prefer cached Replica should be optional and governed
by a config at the client side, whether he wants it or not.
* Secondly, The changes have moved to the server side too, for the sorting
stuff. I think this would have performance impact for those who even don't want
to prefer the cached locations. The intent with which this Jira started was to
keep the logic down at client side, So I think we should refrain from changes
at server side.
* Even make sure those not interested of using cached Replica, should not get
affected by any means all the process work for this should be only done, if
this feature is turned, which by default should be turned off.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16955426#comment-16955426
]
Xiaoqiao He commented on HDFS-14283:
Thanks [~leosun08] for your works.
{quote}But i have a problem that current block.getLocations() which gets a list
of DataNodes in priority order does not consider choosed DN LOAD, bandwidth
etc. I think it is necessary to add this logic later.{quote}
HDFS-14882 is working now, it is very pleasure if you are interested to review
it？
For this ticket, I am concerned about which one should be given priority
between distance and cached. Or leave the option to user?
Consider the following case, 3 replicas (names ra, rb, rc respectively) of one
block, and set cache replicas number to 2 which combine with rb and rc. then
another client which topology distance is more near to host which ra located at
(one corner case is that the client from the same host which ra located at)
rather than hosts rb/rc located. Then which one host should the client request
to firstly. I believe both ra or rb/rc is reasonable. [^HDFS-14283.003.patch]
seems to choose cache priority policy, right? I just suggest maybe it is better
to leave the choice to user.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16955388#comment-16955388
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
hi [~smeng] [~weichiu] [~ayushtkn] [~elgoiri] Could you have time to take a
reivew for this patch? Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16950371#comment-16950371
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
hi [~smeng] [~weichiu] Could you help review this patch?
1.the UT of TestDatanodeManager#
testGetBlockLocationsWithCache
for when the block is cached on one or more DataNodes, it should return the
location of the nearest DataNode that has the cached block
2. the UT of TestDatanodeManager#
testGetBlockLocationsWithNoCache for the block *isn't cached* on any DataNodes,
fall back to the strategy without block cache (i.e. return the location of the
nearest DataNode).
Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch,
> HDFS-14283.003.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16950298#comment-16950298
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
40s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
35s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 17m
12s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
6s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
54s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
56s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
14m 22s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
6s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
47s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
14s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
39s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 2m
56s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 2m
56s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
0m 47s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-hdfs-project: The patch generated 1 new +
109 unchanged - 0 fixed = 110 total (was 109) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
41s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
11m 53s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
16s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
45s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m
57s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 83m 50s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
40s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}155m 42s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.snapshot.TestRenameWithSnapshots |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=19.03.3 Server=19.03.3 Image:yetus/hadoop:104ccca9169 |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-14283 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12982871/HDFS-14283.003.patch |
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall
mvnsite unit shadedclient findbugs checkstyle |
| uname | Linux c77ed2d7a6b1 4.15.0-60-generic #67-Ubuntu SMP Thu Aug 22
16:55:30 UTC 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality | /testptch/patchprocess/precommit/personality/provided.sh |
| git revision | trunk / 5f4641a |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.3.9 |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_222 |
|
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16947235#comment-16947235
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
[~leosun08] After some asking and digging, it seems HDFS block read sorting
doesn't consider DN load, at least for now (but block write does, see config
dfs.namenode.redundancy.considerLoad, which is used in block placement policy).
This makes sense since a block read would typically be much quicker than write
(especially from memory in our case), the most important factor here should
just be distance.
I'm fine with the approach in patch rev 002 that only sorts the cached block
locations by distance order.
One final thing, would you add some sort of testing for this in
TestDatanodeManager (or any other test class / a new test class as you see fit)?
We want to make sure the logic works as intended:
(1) when the block is cached on one or more DataNodes, it should return the
location of the nearest DataNode that has the cached block.
(2) the block *isn't cached* on any DataNodes, fall back to the strategy
without block cache (i.e. return the location of the nearest DataNode).
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16942694#comment-16942694
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 1m
23s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} test4tests {color} | {color:red} 0m
0s{color} | {color:red} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please
list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
26s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 23m
3s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m
33s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
15s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 2m
22s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
18m 1s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
11s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
51s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
40s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m
8s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m
8s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} checkstyle {color} | {color:orange}
0m 49s{color} | {color:orange} hadoop-hdfs-project: The patch generated 1 new +
79 unchanged - 0 fixed = 80 total (was 79) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
41s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
12m 59s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
11s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
47s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 2m
1s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}107m 50s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
44s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}194m 36s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |
hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.TestNameNodeMetadataConsistency |
| | hadoop.hdfs.tools.TestDFSZKFailoverController |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestClientProtocolForPipelineRecovery |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.snapshot.TestRenameWithSnapshots |
| | hadoop.hdfs.TestFileAppend |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=18.09.7 Server=18.09.7 Image:yetus/hadoop:efed4450bf1 |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-14283 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12981957/HDFS-14283.002.patch |
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall
mvnsite unit shadedclient findbugs
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16942552#comment-16942552
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
Thanks [~smeng] for good comment and review.
Current *block.getCachedLocations()* which doesn't get DNs in priority order. I
think your option that some DN could become a hotspot. So i add priority order
for cache locations.
But i have a problem that current *block.getLocations()* which gets a list of
DataNodes in priority order does not consider choosed DN LOAD, bandwidth etc. I
think it is necessary to add this logic later.
Please correct me if I was wrong.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch, HDFS-14283.002.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16942366#comment-16942366
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
Thanks for the patch [~leosun08].
1. After a quick review, it seems that the rev 001 patch essentially chooses
the *last* cached DataNode location. We should at least put a
{code}
break;
{code}
after
{code}
chosenNode = cachedLocs[i];
{code}
2. Unlike *block.getLocations()* which gets a list of DataNodes in priority
order, can you confirm whether *block.getCachedLocations()* does the same
thing? As I skim through the usage of *LocatedBlock.cachedLocs*, it isn't clear
to me that the cached locations is in any priority order. If it isn't (in any
priority order), the change could cause the cached location(DataNode) to become
a hotspot as it will ALWAYS choose one DataNode that cached that block,
possibly filling up the bandwidth to that specific DataNode and slowdown the
client. CMIIW. [~jojochuang]
In my mind, we should arrange *LocatedBlock.cachedLocs* in some priority order
just like *LocatedBlock.locs* does. Only then we can (almost) safely use the
first valid location in the *LocatedBlock.cachedLocs* array.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16935758#comment-16935758
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
hi [~smeng] Could you have time to take a review for this patch? Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
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] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16930003#comment-16930003
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14283:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
42s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} test4tests {color} | {color:red} 0m
0s{color} | {color:red} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please
list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 18m
11s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m
38s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
21s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m
42s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
12m 25s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
37s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
30s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 0m
39s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m
35s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m
35s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
17s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m
40s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedclient {color} | {color:green}
12m 37s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building and testing
our client artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
27s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m
48s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
25s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 54m 54s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=18.09.7 Server=18.09.7 Image:yetus/hadoop:39e82acc485 |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-14283 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12980345/HDFS-14283.001.patch |
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall
mvnsite unit shadedclient findbugs checkstyle |
| uname | Linux 7c6ca20c87b9 4.15.0-58-generic #64-Ubuntu SMP Tue Aug 6
11:12:41 UTC 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality | /testptch/patchprocess/precommit/personality/provided.sh |
| git revision | trunk / 85b1c72 |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.3.9 |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_222 |
| findbugs | v3.1.0-RC1 |
| Test Results |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/27882/testReport/ |
| Max. process+thread count | 306 (vs. ulimit of 5500) |
| modules | C: hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs-client U:
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs-client |
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/27882/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.8.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16929932#comment-16929932
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
hi [~jojochuang]
I just changed DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair() for this issue. Is it
consistent with your original intention? If it ok，I will add unit test for it.
Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14283.001.patch
>
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16927107#comment-16927107
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
[~leosun08] Thanks!
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16926296#comment-16926296
]
Lisheng Sun commented on HDFS-14283:
[~smeng] i are working on this jira. upload this patch later. Thank you.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-14283) DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16926127#comment-16926127
]
Siyao Meng commented on HDFS-14283:
---
[~leosun08] Any work done on your side yet? If not I can take over this one.
[~jojochuang] I'm a bit worried that using enabling this by default could cause
hot spot issue on those DataNodes with cached replicas.
> DFSInputStream to prefer cached replica
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14283
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Environment: HDFS Caching
>Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
>Assignee: Lisheng Sun
>Priority: Major
>
> HDFS Caching offers performance benefits. However, currently NameNode does
> not treat cached replica with higher priority, so HDFS caching is only useful
> when cache replication = 3, that is to say, all replicas are cached in
> memory, so that a client doesn't randomly pick an uncached replica.
> HDFS-6846 proposed to let NameNode give higher priority to cached replica.
> Changing a logic in NameNode is always tricky so that didn't get much
> traction. Here I propose a different approach: let client (DFSInputStream)
> prefer cached replica.
> A {{LocatedBlock}} object already contains cached replica location so a
> client has the needed information. I think we can change
> {{DFSInputStream#getBestNodeDNAddrPair()}} for this purpose.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
