Member since
07-30-2019
111
Posts
186
Kudos Received
35
Solutions
My Accepted Solutions
Title | Views | Posted |
---|---|---|
3237 | 02-07-2018 07:12 PM | |
2448 | 10-27-2017 06:16 PM | |
2718 | 10-13-2017 10:30 PM | |
4984 | 10-12-2017 10:09 PM | |
1261 | 06-29-2017 10:19 PM |
10-12-2017
10:09 PM
1 Kudo
@Bharath N, you don't need to purge edit log files. HDFS deletes them automatically when they are no longer needed. I recommend not touching any edit log files since accidentally deleting the wrong file could lead to data loss. For your NameNode start problem, I can't say anything without more data. You want to engage Hortonworks support for this problem, if you have a support contract. Else you can post the error message/exception here and we may be able to point you in the right direction.
... View more
06-30-2017
12:02 AM
It will be helpful if you attach the complete hdfs-site.xml from both the clusters (you can anonymize hostnames and IP addresses).
... View more
06-29-2017
10:19 PM
1 Kudo
Hi @Rohit Masur, if you want to setup a vagrant box pre-installed with Apache Hadoop 3.0 that should be fine. Although Apache Hadoop 3.0 is a fast-moving target right now (still in Alpha) so it may be better to have good documentation. If the existing installation guide is wrong, please do call that out on the hadoop-user mailing list. Even better if you can file an Apache Hadoop Jira and post a patch to fix the documentation. Feel free to tag me on the Apache Jira if you need any help submitting the patch.
... View more
06-22-2017
07:46 PM
7 Kudos
The HDFS NameNode ensures that each block is sufficiently replicated. When it detects the loss of a DataNode, it instructs remaining nodes to maintain adequate replication by creating additional block replicas.
For each lost replica, the NameNode picks a (source, destination) pair where the source is an available DataNode with another replica of the block and the destination is the target for the new replica. The re-replication work can be massively parallelized in large clusters since the replica distribution is randomized.
In this article, we estimate a lower bound for the recovery time. Simplifying Assumptions
The maximum IO bandwidth of each disk is 100MB/s (reads + writes). This is true for the vast majority of clusters that use spinning disks. The aggregate IO capacity of the cluster is limited by disk and not the network. This is not always true but helps us establish lower bounds without discussing network topologies. Block replicas are uniformly distributed across the cluster and disk usage is uniform. True if the HDFS balancer was run recently.
Theoretical Lower Bound
Let's assume the cluster has n nodes. Each each node has p disks, and the usage of each disk is c TeraBytes. The data usage of each node is thus (p ⋅ c) TB.
The amount of data data transfer needed for recovery is twice the capacity of the lost DataNode as each replica must be read once from a source disk and written once to the target disk.
Data transfer during recovery = 2 ⋅ (Node Capacity)
= (2 ⋅ p ⋅ c) TB
= (2 ⋅ p ⋅ c ⋅ 1,000,000) MB
The re-replication rate is the limited by the available aggregate IO bandwidth in the cluster: Cluster aggregate IO bandwidth = (Disk IO bandwidth) ⋅ (Number of disks)
= (100 ⋅ n ⋅ p) MB/s Thus Minimum Recovery Time = (Data transfer during recovery) / (Cluster aggregate IO bandwidth)
= (2 ⋅ p ⋅ c ⋅ 1,000,000) / (100 ⋅ n ⋅ p)
= (20,000 ⋅ c/n) seconds.
where: c = Mean usage of each disk in TB.
n = Number of DataNodes in the cluster. This is the absolute best case with no other load, no network bandwidth limits, and a perfectly efficient scheduler.
E.g. In a 100 node cluster where each disk has 4TB of data, recovery from the loss of a DataNode must take at least (20,000 ⋅ 4) / 100 = 800 seconds or approximately 13 minutes.
Clearly, the cluster size bounds the recovery time. Disk capacities being equal, a 1000 node cluster can recover 10x faster than a 100 node cluster. A More Practical Lower Bound
The theoretical lower bound assumes that block re-replications can be instantaneously scheduled across the cluster. It also assumes that all cluster IO capacity is available for re-replication whereas in practice application reads and writes also consume IO capacity. The NameNode schedules 2 outbound replication streams per DataNode, per heartbeat interval to throttle re-replication traffic. This throttle allows DataNodes to remain responsive to applications. The throttle can be adjusted via the configuration setting dfs.namenode.replication.max-streams. Let's call this m and the heartbeat interval h.
Also let's assume the mean block size in the cluster is b MB. Then: Re-replication Rate = Blocks Replicated cluster-wide per heartbeat interval
= (n ⋅ m/h) Blocks/s
The total number of blocks to be re-replicated is the capacity of the lost node divided by the mean block size. Number of Blocks Lost = (p ⋅ c) TB / b MB
= (p ⋅ c ⋅ 1,000,000/b).
Thus:
Recovery Time = (Number of Blocks Lost) / (Re-replication Rate)
= (p ⋅ c ⋅ 1,000,000) / (b ⋅ n ⋅ m/h)
= (p ⋅ c ⋅ h ⋅ 1,000,000) / (b ⋅ n ⋅ m) seconds.
where: p = Number of disks per node.
c = Mean usage of each disk in TB.
h = Heartbeat interval (default = 3 seconds).
b = Mean block size in MB.
n = Number of DataNodes in the cluster.
m = dfs.namenode.replication.max-streams (default = 2)
Simplifying by plugging in the defaults for h and m, we get
Minimum Recovery Time (seconds) = (p ⋅ c ⋅ 1,500,000) / (b ⋅ n)
E.g. in the same cluster, assuming the mean block size is 128MB and each node has 8 disks, the practical lower bound on recovery time will be 3,750 seconds or ~1 hour. Reducing the Recovery Time
The recovery time can be reduced by:
Increasing dfs.namenode.replication.max-streams. However, setting this value too high can affect cluster performance. Note that increasing this value beyond 4 must be evaluated carefully and also requires changing the safeguard upper limit via dfs.namenode.replication.max-streams-hard-limit.
Using more nodes with smaller disks. Total cluster capacity remaining the same, a cluster with more nodes and smaller disks will recover faster.
Avoiding predominantly small blocks.
... View more
Labels:
06-21-2017
09:58 PM
Thanks for the heads up @Namit Maheshwari. I don't have a better solution in mind than what @Mark Davis already described.
... View more
06-12-2017
05:12 PM
1 Kudo
@Laurent Edel this answer is incorrect. Please consider editing it to mention decommissioning. Else someone may assume it's OK to just remove nodes if they have rack awareness.
... View more
06-12-2017
05:06 PM
2 Kudos
Don't just remove the DataNodes. Even with rack awareness, removing >2 nodes from different racks will lead to data loss. Instead, you should decommission them first as described here: https://docs.hortonworks.com/HDPDocuments/HDP2/HDP-2.6.0/bk_administration/content/ref-a179736c-eb7c-4dda-b3b4-6f3a778bd8c8.1.html You may know this already, but I want to make it clear for others who read this discussion in the future.
... View more
05-22-2017
08:39 PM
Sorry I missed the notification of your reply. That is also a good question. I have not yet come across a customer setup where HDFS audit logging is disabled and Ranger audit logs is on. I'd recommend tagging someone from Ranger to make sure.
... View more
05-08-2017
02:56 PM
@Ward Bekker we don't recommend disabling HDFS audit logging. It's hard to debug many HDFS issues without the audit log. Just curious, why would you like to disable it?
... View more
04-25-2017
09:16 PM
1 Kudo
Nobody. Periodic checkpointing is suspended in an HA setup when the Standby NameNode is down.
... View more