[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1470?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12508259
]
Raghu Angadi commented on HADOOP-1470:
--------------------------------------
Even without generic skip(), attached patch should use seek() inside skip() (or
vice versa) since both do the same currently.
Doug, I thought about position for readChunk(), could you comment on the
following or show a simple use case?:
# InputChecker needs to be file position aware. Right now it is not. It is more
of an utility to handle checksums.
# What is contract of pos? I mean what is an implementation supposed to assume
if say pos in readChunk_n+1 is not equal to 'pos in readChunk_n +
nextChunkSize_n'
# Seek to random position implies that InputChecker can not know where a
checksum chunks starts, so we need another abstract method for that. this
method is not simple in general.
> 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, genericChecksum.patch,
> InputChecker-01.java
>
>
> 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.
