[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12946?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16700402#comment-16700402
]
Kitti Nanasi commented on HDFS-12946:
-------------------------------------
Thanks [~xiaochen] for the comments!
In patch v009 I fixed the comments and modified
FSNamesystem#getVerifyECWithTopologyResult's return type to String to match the
format of the other entries in the name node jmx.
I created HDFS-14061 for running the topology check in
FSN#enableErasureCodingPolicy.
> 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, HDFS-12946.05.patch,
> HDFS-12946.06.patch, HDFS-12946.07.patch, HDFS-12946.08.patch,
> HDFS-12946.09.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]
