Hexiaoqiao commented on PR #4524: URL: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/4524#issuecomment-1173413790
Thanks for quick response. > Long run client case. There may be many files being written at the same time. In my practice, the cost with split-path to renewLease will be under control even for long running applications, such flink applications (I have not observed that many files being written concurrently, it will be helpful if any cases could offer.) > Multiple destination case. RBF always forwards the renew lease rpc to all destination name service. For both create and renewLease (with file path), I think they will apply the same MountTableResolver for same file. So it does not seem to one issue for renewLease. Maybe some corner case I do not catch. Please correct me if something missed. > the number of renewLease requests between client and rbf will also increases. Yes, it is true. I am totally agree. Based on my internal production cluster, it will be less than 5% increase. BTW, My consideration here is that it will be more smooth and understandable only one rbf namespace expose for client, rather than rbf and all namespaces behind router expose to client. Another side, renewLease is one lightweight request, less than 5% overhead is acceptable in my opinion. Of course, the above information is totally based on my internal practice, maybe some other cases are not included. Very glad to hear more discussions and suggestions. Thanks. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
