[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12946?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16653540#comment-16653540
]
Kitti Nanasi commented on HDFS-12946:
-------------------------------------
Thanks for the discussion [~xiaochen] and [~andrew.wang]!
I like #2 more as well, because of the same reason that [~xiaochen] mentioned,
that it is easy to use by other downstream applications and it can be easily
reused in the enable and set policy logics. But even in that case we need to
figure out if it will be implemented in fsck or in ECAdmin or somewhere else.
About the return type, I believe if the jmx function is exposed via an MXBean
and not an MBean, then the function can return complex types. I will modify
that in the next patch.
> Add a tool to check rack configuration against EC policies
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-12946
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12946
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: erasure-coding
> Reporter: Xiao Chen
> Assignee: Kitti Nanasi
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-12946.01.patch, HDFS-12946.02.patch,
> HDFS-12946.03.patch, HDFS-12946.04.fsck.patch
>
>
> From testing we have seen setups with problematic racks / datanodes that
> would not suffice basic EC usages. These are usually found out only after the
> tests failed.
> We should provide a way to check this beforehand.
> Some scenarios:
> - not enough datanodes compared to EC policy's highest data+parity number
> - not enough racks to satisfy BPPRackFaultTolerant
> - highly uneven racks to satisfy BPPRackFaultTolerant
> - highly uneven racks (so that BPP's considerLoad logic may exclude some busy
> nodes on the rack, resulting in #2)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
