[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9381?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15027903#comment-15027903
]
Zhe Zhang commented on HDFS-9381:
---------------------------------
I agree that the scenario of _a new recovery task waiting for previous tasks
for the same striped block_ is rare. And I think the position of this change is
to optimize the worst case consequence of this rare situation. To determine
whether the optimization justifies the added complexity, I think we can create
a more concrete example.
The example I can think of is: 2 DNs failed. They happen to share a pretty
large set of striped blocks (e.g., on the order of 1,000). Roughly how much
locking time is reduced by this change? [~umamaheswararao] Do you have a clue
how to estimate?
bq. I think besides reducing locking contention, this change also speeds up the
recovery of non-striping blocks. E.g., when a rack fails, there could be a lot
of striped block recovery work waiting. They could block regular recovery
tasks.
I also listed the above as another benefit. [~jingzhao] Any thoughts?
> When same block came for replication for Striped mode, we can move that block
> to PendingReplications
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-9381
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9381
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: erasure-coding, namenode
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0
> Reporter: Uma Maheswara Rao G
> Assignee: Uma Maheswara Rao G
> Attachments: HDFS-9381-02.patch, HDFS-9381-03.patch,
> HDFS-9381.00.patch, HDFS-9381.01.patch
>
>
> Currently I noticed that we are just returning null if block already exists
> in pendingReplications in replication flow for striped blocks.
> {code}
> if (block.isStriped()) {
> if (pendingNum > 0) {
> // Wait the previous recovery to finish.
> return null;
> }
> {code}
> Here if we just return null and if neededReplications contains only fewer
> blocks(basically by default if less than numliveNodes*2), then same blocks
> can be picked again from neededReplications from next loop as we are not
> removing element from neededReplications. Since this replication process need
> to take fsnamesystmem lock and do, we may spend some time unnecessarily in
> every loop.
> So my suggestion/improvement is:
> Instead of just returning null, how about incrementing pendingReplications
> for this block and remove from neededReplications? and also another point to
> consider here is, to add into pendingReplications, generally we need target
> and it is nothing but to which node we issued replication command. Later when
> after replication success and DN reported it, block will be removed from
> pendingReplications from NN addBlock.
> So since this is newly picked block from neededReplications, we would not
> have selected target yet. So which target to be passed to pendingReplications
> if we add this block? One Option I am thinking is, how about just passing
> srcNode itself as target for this special condition? So, anyway if the block
> is really missed, srcNode will not report it. So this block will not be
> removed from pending replications, so that when it is timed out, it will be
> considered for replication again and that time it will find actual target to
> replicate while processing as part of regular replication flow.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
