And I have both but have had disk full problems. I can't be sure right now whether this occurred under 14.4 or 15.1, but I think it was 15.1.
In any case, new file creation from a non-datanode host is definitely not well balanced and will lead to disk full conditions if you have dramatically different sized partitions available on the different datanodes. Also, if you have a small and a large partition available on a single node, the small partition will fill up and cause corruption. I had to go to single partitions on all nodes to avoid this. <property> <name>dfs.datanode.du.reserved</name> <!-- 10 GB --> <value> 10000000000 </value> <description>Reserved space in bytes. Always leave this much space free for non dfs use </description> </property> <property> <name>dfs.datanode.du.pct</name> <value>0.9f</value> <description>When calculating remaining space, only use this percentage of the real available space </description> </property> On 1/8/08 1:30 PM, "Koji Noguchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We use, > > dfs.datanode.du.pct for 0.14 and dfs.datanode.du.reserved for 0.15. > > Change was made in the Jira Hairong mentioned. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1463 > > Koji > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:13 PM >> To: hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Limit the space used by hadoop on a slave node >> >> >> I think I have seen related bad behavior on 15.1. >> >> On 1/8/08 11:49 AM, "Hairong Kuang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Has anybody tried 15.0? Please check >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1463. >>> >>> Hairong >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joydeep Sen Sarma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:33 AM >>> To: hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org; hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: RE: Limit the space used by hadoop on a slave node >>> >>> at least up until 14.4, these options are broken. see >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2549 >>> >>> (there's a trivial patch - but i am still testing). >>> >>> >
