[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16974759#comment-16974759
 ] 

Konstantin Shvachko commented on HDFS-14973:
--------------------------------------------

This is the Jenkins build that built the patch, but couldn't send the report to 
hits jira for some reason:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/28311/testReport/

> Balancer getBlocks RPC dispersal does not function properly
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-14973
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14973
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: balancer & mover
>    Affects Versions: 2.9.0, 2.7.4, 2.8.2, 3.0.0
>            Reporter: Erik Krogen
>            Assignee: Erik Krogen
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: HDFS-14973.000.patch, HDFS-14973.001.patch, 
> HDFS-14973.002.patch, HDFS-14973.003.patch, HDFS-14973.test.patch
>
>
> In HDFS-11384, a mechanism was added to make the {{getBlocks}} RPC calls 
> issued by the Balancer/Mover more dispersed, to alleviate load on the 
> NameNode, since {{getBlocks}} can be very expensive and the Balancer should 
> not impact normal cluster operation.
> Unfortunately, this functionality does not function as expected, especially 
> when the dispatcher thread count is low. The primary issue is that the delay 
> is applied only to the first N threads that are submitted to the dispatcher's 
> executor, where N is the size of the dispatcher's threadpool, but *not* to 
> the first R threads, where R is the number of allowed {{getBlocks}} QPS 
> (currently hardcoded to 20). For example, if the threadpool size is 100 (the 
> default), threads 0-19 have no delay, 20-99 have increased levels of delay, 
> and 100+ have no delay. As I understand it, the intent of the logic was that 
> the delay applied to the first 100 threads would force the dispatcher 
> executor's threads to all be consumed, thus blocking subsequent (non-delayed) 
> threads until the delay period has expired. However, threads 0-19 can finish 
> very quickly (their work can often be fulfilled in the time it takes to 
> execute a single {{getBlocks}} RPC, on the order of tens of milliseconds), 
> thus opening up 20 new slots in the executor, which are then consumed by 
> non-delayed threads 100-119, and so on. So, although 80 threads have had a 
> delay applied, the non-delay threads rush through in the 20 non-delay slots.
> This problem gets even worse when the dispatcher threadpool size is less than 
> the max {{getBlocks}} QPS. For example, if the threadpool size is 10, _no 
> threads ever have a delay applied_, and the feature is not enabled at all.
> This problem wasn't surfaced in the original JIRA because the test 
> incorrectly measured the period across which {{getBlocks}} RPCs were 
> distributed. The variables {{startGetBlocksTime}} and {{endGetBlocksTime}} 
> were used to track the time over which the {{getBlocks}} calls were made. 
> However, {{startGetBlocksTime}} was initialized at the time of creation of 
> the {{FSNameystem}} spy, which is before the mock DataNodes are started. Even 
> worse, the Balancer in this test takes 2 iterations to complete balancing the 
> cluster, so the time period {{endGetBlocksTime - startGetBlocksTime}} 
> actually represents:
> {code}
> (time to submit getBlocks RPCs) + (DataNode startup time) + (time for the 
> Dispatcher to complete an iteration of moving blocks)
> {code}
> Thus, the RPC QPS reported by the test is much lower than the RPC QPS seen 
> during the period of initial block fetching.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Reply via email to