[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1470?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12502499
 ] 

Raghu Angadi commented on HADOOP-1470:
--------------------------------------

Doug, I personally like the condition that block size should be a multiple of 
{{bpc}}. I even filed HADOOP-1259 about it. I guess discussion there is still 
relevant.

But my point is that this generic InputChecker forces a condition that does not 
make sense for either of its users (ChecksumFS and DFS). This is just one 
example of things that imposes. The current uploaded patch even takes 
'blockSize' for output summer, though not yet used. 

Do you think attached patch is generic?


> Rework FSInputChecker and FSOutputSummer to support checksum code sharing 
> between ChecksumFileSystem and block level crc dfs
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HADOOP-1470
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1470
>             Project: Hadoop
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: fs
>    Affects Versions: 0.12.3
>            Reporter: Hairong Kuang
>            Assignee: Hairong Kuang
>             Fix For: 0.14.0
>
>         Attachments: genericChecksum.patch
>
>
> Comment from Doug in HADOOP-1134:
> I'd prefer it if the CRC code could be shared with CheckSumFileSystem. In 
> particular, it seems to me that FSInputChecker and FSOutputSummer could be 
> extended to support pluggable sources and sinks for checksums, respectively, 
> and DFSDataInputStream and DFSDataOutputStream could use these. Advantages of 
> this are: (a) single implementation of checksum logic to debug and maintain; 
> (b) keeps checksumming as close to possible to data generation and use. This 
> patch computes checksums after data has been buffered, and validates them 
> before it is buffered. We sometimes use large buffers and would like to guard 
> against in-memory errors. The current checksum code catches a lot of such 
> errors. So we should compute checksums after minimal buffering (just 
> bytesPerChecksum, ideally) and validate them at the last possible moment 
> (e.g., through the use of a small final buffer with a larger buffer behind 
> it). I do not think this will significantly affect performance, and data 
> integrity is a high priority. 

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to