[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7864?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14349509#comment-14349509
 ] 

Jing Zhao commented on HDFS-7864:
---------------------------------

Hi [~demongaorui], thanks for the comments.

In our current implementation, DataNodes does not know any difference between a 
contiguous block and a block belonging to a striped blockgroup. For example, 
let's say a file consists of one striped block: b1 with block id 
0x8000000000000000L. For a 6+3 encoding, b1 includes 6 data blocks and 3 parity 
blocks, with block id 0x8000000000000000L, 0x8000000000000001L, 
0x8000000000000002L, ..., 0x8000000000000008L, accordingly. DataNodes then only 
see these data blocks and parity blocks, and the concept of striped block 
(which is actually a block group) is only known by the NameNode (and maybe 
client). In FSImage, for the striped block, we can still treat it as a normal 
block except we need to store its number of data/parity blocks.

This is mainly to save NameNode memory. More details are in "NameNode Memory 
Usage Reduction" section in the [design doc | 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12697210/HDFSErasureCodingDesign-20150206.pdf].

> Erasure Coding: Update safemode calculation for striped blocks
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-7864
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7864
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Jing Zhao
>            Assignee: GAO Rui
>
> We need to update the safemode calculation for striped blocks. Specifically, 
> each striped block now consists of multiple data/parity blocks stored in 
> corresponding DataNodes. The current code's calculation is thus inconsistent: 
> each striped block is only counted as 1 expected block, while each of its 
> member block may increase the number of received blocks by 1.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to