Yes, it was 1 MB/s (I was foolish), and it shouldn't affect the result.

Also, log for 4th node says it wasn't properly working as a datanode,
and regardless of replication factor, data is replicated to only 3 of 4
nodes (I was foolish again :-().

My single node has 4 dual core cpus, and 24 hard disks, I need to get
input data for 4 dual core cpus via 1 GigE network interface and seems
like this hurts the scalability.

Thanks a lot for all the help!!!

On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 16:21 -0700, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Seunghwa Kang <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>         I checked with
>         
>         bin/hadoop fs -stat "%n %r" input/*
>         
>         part-00000 4
>         part-00001 4
>         part-00002 4
>         part-00003 4
>         part-00004 4
>         part-00005 4
>         part-00006 4
>         part-00007 4
>         
>         and see replication factor is 4.
>         
>         Also, I set replication factor to 4 in hadoop-site.xml, run
>         stop-all.sh
>         and start-all.sh, re-load the data, and re-run the code but
>         still
>         getting the same result.
>         
>         I am searching for hadoop-default.xml and find
>         
>         <property>
>         <name>dfs.balance.bandwidthPerSec</name>
>         <value>1048576</value>
>         <description>
>         Specifies the maximum amount of bandwidth that each datanode
>         can utilize for the balancing purpose in term of
>         the number of bytes per second.
>         </description>
>         </property>
>         
>         1048576 is 1 GB/s and seems like higher than 1 Gbit/s for my
>         nodes. I am
>         going to change this value and see what happens.
> 
> That's in bytes per second, so that's 1MB/sec. If anything you may
> want to raise it on a small cluster. This also affects the dfs
> balancer, not rereplication of underreplicated blocks, so shouldn't
> matter.
> 
> Check fsck and see what it says for a count of underreplicated blocks.
> Also, if you use the NN web UI to navigate to view one of these files,
> it should tell you where the blocks are hosted.
> 
> Overall, I wouldn't worry about this on a small cluster unless you've
> seen on your monitoring graphs that your network is getting saturated.
> You'll probably be CPU bound before you're network bound unless you
> have VERY low locality and very fast CPUs.
> 
> -Todd
> 
> 
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 16:07 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>         >
>         > Does [hadoop fs -fsck /] show any under-replicated
>         files/blocks?  you
>         > may not waited long enough after increasing the target
>         replication
>         > rate.
>         >
>         > Another thing to watch out for in a production node is the
>         > distribution of node blocks.  You should be careful to load
>         data from
>         > outside the cluster to ensure random placement of file
>         blocks.  That
>         > is critical for getting good locality.  This obviously
>         doesn't apply
>         > to your situation with 4 replicas on 4 nodes.
>         >
>         > Todd's comment about -setrep is also very important to note.
>         >
>         > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Seunghwa Kang
>         <[email protected]>
>         > wrote:
>         >
>         >         Just for test purpose, I increase the replication
>         factor to 4,
>         >         and check
>         >         that input data actually has replication factor of 4
>         with
>         >         'hadoop fs
>         >         -stat %r%n' but find that the ratio is still around
>         80% for 4
>         >         nodes.
>         >
>         >
>         
>         
> 

Reply via email to