Re: HDFS file system size issue
Hi Rahman, These are few lines from hadoop fsck / -blocks -files -locations /mnt/hadoop/hive/warehouse/user.db/table1/000255_0 44323326 bytes, 1 block(s): OK 0. blk_-7919979022650423857_446500 len=44323326 repl=3 [ip1:50010, ip2:50010, ip3:50010] /mnt/hadoop/hive/warehouse/user.db/table1/000256_0 44566965 bytes, 1 block(s): OK 0. blk_-576894812882540_446288 len=44566965 repl=3 [ip1:50010, ip2:50010, ip4:50010] Biswa may have guessed replication factor from fsck summary that I posted earlier. I am posting it again for today's run: Status: HEALTHY Total size:58143055251 B Total dirs:307 Total files: 5093 Total blocks (validated): 3903 (avg. block size 14897016 B) Minimally replicated blocks: 3903 (100.0 %) Over-replicated blocks:0 (0.0 %) Under-replicated blocks: 92 (2.357161 %) Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Default replication factor:2 Average block replication: 3.1401486 Corrupt blocks:0 Missing replicas: 92 (0.75065273 %) Number of data-nodes: 9 Number of racks: 1 FSCK ended at Tue Apr 15 13:20:25 UTC 2014 in 655 milliseconds The filesystem under path '/' is HEALTHY I have not overridden dfs.datanode.du.reserved. It defaults to 0. $ less $HADOOP_HOME/conf/hdfs-site.xml |grep -A3 'dfs.datanode.du.reserved' $ less $HADOOP_HOME/src/hdfs/hdfs-default.xml |grep -A3 'dfs.datanode.du.reserved' namedfs.datanode.du.reserved/name value0/value descriptionReserved space in bytes per volume. Always leave this much space free for non dfs use. /description Below is du -h on every node. FYI, my dfs.data.dir is /mnt/hadoop/dfs/data and all hadoop/hive logs are dumped in /mnt/logs in various directories. All machines have 400GB for /mnt. $for i in `echo $dfs_slaves`; do ssh $i 'du -sh /mnt/hadoop; du -sh /mnt/hadoop/dfs/data; du -sh /mnt/logs;'; done 225G/mnt/hadoop 224G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 61M /mnt/logs 281G/mnt/hadoop 281G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 63M /mnt/logs 139G/mnt/hadoop 139G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 68M /mnt/logs 135G/mnt/hadoop 134G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 92M /mnt/logs 165G/mnt/hadoop 164G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 75M /mnt/logs 137G/mnt/hadoop 137G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 95M /mnt/logs 160G/mnt/hadoop 160G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 74M /mnt/logs 180G/mnt/hadoop 122G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 23M /mnt/logs 139G/mnt/hadoop 138G/mnt/hadoop/dfs/data 76M /mnt/logs All these numbers are for today, and may differ bit from yesterday. Today hadoop dfs -dus is 58GB and namenode is reporting DFS Used as 1.46TB. Pardon me for making the mail dirty by lot of copy-pastes, hope it's still readable, -- Saumitra S. Shahapure On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Abdelrahman Shettia ashet...@hortonworks.com wrote: Hi Biswa, Are you sure that the replication factor of the files are three? Please run a ‘hadoop fsck / -blocks -files -locations’ and see the replication factor for each file. Also, Post the configuration of namedfs.datanode. du.reserved/name and please check the real space presented by a DataNode by running ‘du -h’ Thanks, Rahman On Apr 14, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Biswanath, looks like we have confusion in calculation, 1TB would be equal to 1024GB, not 114GB. Sandeep, I checked log directory size as well. Log directories are hardly in few GBs, I have configured log4j properties so that logs won’t be too large. In our slave machines, we have 450GB disk partition for hadoop logs and DFS. Over there logs directory is 10GBs and rest space is occupied by DFS. 10GB partition is for /. Let me quote my confusion point once again: Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus. In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit its limits? I am talking about name node status page on 50070 port. Here is the screenshot of my name node status page Screen Shot 2014-04-15 at 2.07.19 am.png As I understand, 'DFS used’ is the space taken by DFS, non-DFS used is spaces taken by non-DFS data like logs or other local files from users. Namenode shows that DFS used is ~1TB but hadoop dfs -dus shows it to be ~38GB. On 14-Apr-2014, at 12:33 pm, Sandeep Nemuri nhsande...@gmail.com wrote: Please check your logs directory usage. On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Biswajit Nayak biswajit.na...@inmobi.com wrote: Whats the replication factor you have? I believe it should be 3. hadoop dus shows that disk usage without replication. While name node ui page gives with replication. 38gb * 3 =114gb ~ 1TB ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Saumitra
Re: HDFS file system size issue
Whats the replication factor you have? I believe it should be 3. hadoop dus shows that disk usage without replication. While name node ui page gives with replication. 38gb * 3 =114gb ~ 1TB ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Biswajeet, Non-dfs usage is ~100GB over the cluster. But still the number are nowhere near 1TB. Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus. In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit its limits? On 14-Apr-2014, at 8:31 am, Biswajit Nayak biswajit.na...@inmobi.com wrote: Hi Saumitra, Could you please check the non-dfs usage. They also contribute to filling up the disk space. ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, We are running HDFS on 9-node hadoop cluster, hadoop version is 1.2.1. We are using default HDFS block size. We have noticed that disks of slaves are almost full. From name node's status page (namenode:50070), we could see that disks of live nodes are 90% full and DFS Used% in cluster summary page is ~1TB. However hadoop dfs -dus / shows that file system size is merely 38GB. 38GB number looks to be correct because we keep only few Hive tables and hadoop's /tmp (distributed cache and job outputs) in HDFS. All other data is cleaned up. I cross-checked this from hadoop dfs -ls. Also I think that there is no internal fragmentation because the files in our Hive tables are well-chopped in ~50MB chunks. Here are last few lines of hadoop fsck / -files -blocks Status: HEALTHY Total size: 38086441332 B Total dirs: 232 Total files: 802 Total blocks (validated): 796 (avg. block size 47847288 B) Minimally replicated blocks: 796 (100.0 %) Over-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Under-replicated blocks: 6 (0.75376886 %) Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Default replication factor: 2 Average block replication: 3.0439699 Corrupt blocks: 0 Missing replicas: 6 (0.24762692 %) Number of data-nodes: 9 Number of racks: 1 FSCK ended at Sun Apr 13 19:49:23 UTC 2014 in 135 milliseconds My question is that why disks of slaves are getting full even though there are only few files in DFS? _ The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt. -- _ The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
Re: HDFS file system size issue
Please check your logs directory usage. On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Biswajit Nayak biswajit.na...@inmobi.comwrote: Whats the replication factor you have? I believe it should be 3. hadoop dus shows that disk usage without replication. While name node ui page gives with replication. 38gb * 3 =114gb ~ 1TB ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Biswajeet, Non-dfs usage is ~100GB over the cluster. But still the number are nowhere near 1TB. Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus. In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit its limits? On 14-Apr-2014, at 8:31 am, Biswajit Nayak biswajit.na...@inmobi.com wrote: Hi Saumitra, Could you please check the non-dfs usage. They also contribute to filling up the disk space. ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, We are running HDFS on 9-node hadoop cluster, hadoop version is 1.2.1. We are using default HDFS block size. We have noticed that disks of slaves are almost full. From name node’s status page (namenode:50070), we could see that disks of live nodes are 90% full and DFS Used% in cluster summary page is ~1TB. However hadoop dfs -dus / shows that file system size is merely 38GB. 38GB number looks to be correct because we keep only few Hive tables and hadoop’s /tmp (distributed cache and job outputs) in HDFS. All other data is cleaned up. I cross-checked this from hadoop dfs -ls. Also I think that there is no internal fragmentation because the files in our Hive tables are well-chopped in ~50MB chunks. Here are last few lines of hadoop fsck / -files -blocks Status: HEALTHY Total size: 38086441332 B Total dirs: 232 Total files: 802 Total blocks (validated): 796 (avg. block size 47847288 B) Minimally replicated blocks: 796 (100.0 %) Over-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Under-replicated blocks: 6 (0.75376886 %) Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Default replication factor: 2 Average block replication: 3.0439699 Corrupt blocks: 0 Missing replicas: 6 (0.24762692 %) Number of data-nodes: 9 Number of racks: 1 FSCK ended at Sun Apr 13 19:49:23 UTC 2014 in 135 milliseconds My question is that why disks of slaves are getting full even though there are only few files in DFS? _ The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt. _ The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt. -- --Regards Sandeep Nemuri
Re: HDFS file system size issue
Hi Biswa, Are you sure that the replication factor of the files are three? Please run a ‘hadoop fsck / -blocks -files -locations’ and see the replication factor for each file. Also, Post the configuration of namedfs.datanode.du.reserved/name and please check the real space presented by a DataNode by running ‘du -h’ Thanks, Rahman On Apr 14, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Biswanath, looks like we have confusion in calculation, 1TB would be equal to 1024GB, not 114GB. Sandeep, I checked log directory size as well. Log directories are hardly in few GBs, I have configured log4j properties so that logs won’t be too large. In our slave machines, we have 450GB disk partition for hadoop logs and DFS. Over there logs directory is 10GBs and rest space is occupied by DFS. 10GB partition is for /. Let me quote my confusion point once again: Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus. In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit its limits? I am talking about name node status page on 50070 port. Here is the screenshot of my name node status page Screen Shot 2014-04-15 at 2.07.19 am.png As I understand, 'DFS used’ is the space taken by DFS, non-DFS used is spaces taken by non-DFS data like logs or other local files from users. Namenode shows that DFS used is ~1TB but hadoop dfs -dus shows it to be ~38GB. On 14-Apr-2014, at 12:33 pm, Sandeep Nemuri nhsande...@gmail.com wrote: Please check your logs directory usage. On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Biswajit Nayak biswajit.na...@inmobi.com wrote: Whats the replication factor you have? I believe it should be 3. hadoop dus shows that disk usage without replication. While name node ui page gives with replication. 38gb * 3 =114gb ~ 1TB ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Biswajeet, Non-dfs usage is ~100GB over the cluster. But still the number are nowhere near 1TB. Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus. In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit its limits? On 14-Apr-2014, at 8:31 am, Biswajit Nayak biswajit.na...@inmobi.com wrote: Hi Saumitra, Could you please check the non-dfs usage. They also contribute to filling up the disk space. ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, We are running HDFS on 9-node hadoop cluster, hadoop version is 1.2.1. We are using default HDFS block size. We have noticed that disks of slaves are almost full. From name node’s status page (namenode:50070), we could see that disks of live nodes are 90% full and DFS Used% in cluster summary page is ~1TB. However hadoop dfs -dus / shows that file system size is merely 38GB. 38GB number looks to be correct because we keep only few Hive tables and hadoop’s /tmp (distributed cache and job outputs) in HDFS. All other data is cleaned up. I cross-checked this from hadoop dfs -ls. Also I think that there is no internal fragmentation because the files in our Hive tables are well-chopped in ~50MB chunks. Here are last few lines of hadoop fsck / -files -blocks Status: HEALTHY Total size:38086441332 B Total dirs:232 Total files: 802 Total blocks (validated): 796 (avg. block size 47847288 B) Minimally replicated blocks: 796 (100.0 %) Over-replicated blocks:0 (0.0 %) Under-replicated blocks: 6 (0.75376886 %) Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Default replication factor:2 Average block replication: 3.0439699 Corrupt blocks:0 Missing replicas: 6 (0.24762692 %) Number of data-nodes: 9 Number of racks: 1 FSCK ended at Sun Apr 13 19:49:23 UTC 2014 in 135 milliseconds My question is that why disks of slaves are getting full even though there are only few files in DFS? _ The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
HDFS file system size issue
Hello, We are running HDFS on 9-node hadoop cluster, hadoop version is 1.2.1. We are using default HDFS block size. We have noticed that disks of slaves are almost full. From name node’s status page (namenode:50070), we could see that disks of live nodes are 90% full and DFS Used% in cluster summary page is ~1TB. However hadoop dfs -dus / shows that file system size is merely 38GB. 38GB number looks to be correct because we keep only few Hive tables and hadoop’s /tmp (distributed cache and job outputs) in HDFS. All other data is cleaned up. I cross-checked this from hadoop dfs -ls. Also I think that there is no internal fragmentation because the files in our Hive tables are well-chopped in ~50MB chunks. Here are last few lines of hadoop fsck / -files -blocks Status: HEALTHY Total size:38086441332 B Total dirs:232 Total files: 802 Total blocks (validated): 796 (avg. block size 47847288 B) Minimally replicated blocks: 796 (100.0 %) Over-replicated blocks:0 (0.0 %) Under-replicated blocks: 6 (0.75376886 %) Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Default replication factor:2 Average block replication: 3.0439699 Corrupt blocks:0 Missing replicas: 6 (0.24762692 %) Number of data-nodes: 9 Number of racks: 1 FSCK ended at Sun Apr 13 19:49:23 UTC 2014 in 135 milliseconds My question is that why disks of slaves are getting full even though there are only few files in DFS?
Re: HDFS file system size issue
Hi Saumitra, Could you please check the non-dfs usage. They also contribute to filling up the disk space. ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, We are running HDFS on 9-node hadoop cluster, hadoop version is 1.2.1. We are using default HDFS block size. We have noticed that disks of slaves are almost full. From name node's status page (namenode:50070), we could see that disks of live nodes are 90% full and DFS Used% in cluster summary page is ~1TB. However hadoop dfs -dus / shows that file system size is merely 38GB. 38GB number looks to be correct because we keep only few Hive tables and hadoop's /tmp (distributed cache and job outputs) in HDFS. All other data is cleaned up. I cross-checked this from hadoop dfs -ls. Also I think that there is no internal fragmentation because the files in our Hive tables are well-chopped in ~50MB chunks. Here are last few lines of hadoop fsck / -files -blocks Status: HEALTHY Total size: 38086441332 B Total dirs: 232 Total files: 802 Total blocks (validated): 796 (avg. block size 47847288 B) Minimally replicated blocks: 796 (100.0 %) Over-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Under-replicated blocks: 6 (0.75376886 %) Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Default replication factor: 2 Average block replication: 3.0439699 Corrupt blocks: 0 Missing replicas: 6 (0.24762692 %) Number of data-nodes: 9 Number of racks: 1 FSCK ended at Sun Apr 13 19:49:23 UTC 2014 in 135 milliseconds My question is that why disks of slaves are getting full even though there are only few files in DFS? -- _ The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
Re: HDFS file system size issue
Hi Biswajeet, Non-dfs usage is ~100GB over the cluster. But still the number are nowhere near 1TB. Basically I wanted to point out discrepancy in name node status page and hadoop dfs -dus. In my case, earlier one reports DFS usage as 1TB and later one reports it to be 35GB. What are the factors that can cause this difference? And why is just 35GB data causing DFS to hit its limits? On 14-Apr-2014, at 8:31 am, Biswajit Nayak biswajit.na...@inmobi.com wrote: Hi Saumitra, Could you please check the non-dfs usage. They also contribute to filling up the disk space. ~Biswa -oThe important thing is not to stop questioning o- On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Saumitra saumitra.offic...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, We are running HDFS on 9-node hadoop cluster, hadoop version is 1.2.1. We are using default HDFS block size. We have noticed that disks of slaves are almost full. From name node’s status page (namenode:50070), we could see that disks of live nodes are 90% full and DFS Used% in cluster summary page is ~1TB. However hadoop dfs -dus / shows that file system size is merely 38GB. 38GB number looks to be correct because we keep only few Hive tables and hadoop’s /tmp (distributed cache and job outputs) in HDFS. All other data is cleaned up. I cross-checked this from hadoop dfs -ls. Also I think that there is no internal fragmentation because the files in our Hive tables are well-chopped in ~50MB chunks. Here are last few lines of hadoop fsck / -files -blocks Status: HEALTHY Total size: 38086441332 B Total dirs: 232 Total files: 802 Total blocks (validated):796 (avg. block size 47847288 B) Minimally replicated blocks: 796 (100.0 %) Over-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Under-replicated blocks: 6 (0.75376886 %) Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) Default replication factor: 2 Average block replication: 3.0439699 Corrupt blocks: 0 Missing replicas:6 (0.24762692 %) Number of data-nodes:9 Number of racks: 1 FSCK ended at Sun Apr 13 19:49:23 UTC 2014 in 135 milliseconds My question is that why disks of slaves are getting full even though there are only few files in DFS? _ The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
