[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15719?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Wei-Chiu Chuang updated HDFS-15719:
-----------------------------------
Hadoop Flags: Incompatible change
Release Note:
The default value of the configuration hadoop.http.idle_timeout.ms (how long
does Jetty disconnect an idle connection) is changed from 10000 to 60000.
This property is inlined during compile time, so an application that references
this property must be recompiled in order for it to take effect.
> [Hadoop 3] Both NameNodes can crash simultaneously due to the short JN socket
> timeout
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-15719
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15719
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0
> Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
> Assignee: Wei-Chiu Chuang
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 3.3.1, 3.4.0, 3.1.5, 3.2.3
>
> Time Spent: 1.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> After Hadoop 3, we migrated Jetty 6 to Jetty 9. It was implemented in
> HADOOP-10075.
> However, HADOOP-10075 erroneously set the HttpServer2 socket idle timeout too
> low.
> We replaced SelectChannelConnector.setLowResourceMaxIdleTime() with
> ServerConnector.setIdleTimeout() but they aren't the same.
> Essentially, the HttpServer2's idle timeout was the default timeout set by
> Jetty 6, which is 200 seconds. After Hadoop 3, the idle timeout is set to 10
> seconds, which is unreasonable for JN. If NameNodes try to download a big
> edit log from JournalNodes (say a few hundred MB), it is likely to exceed 10
> seconds. When it happens, both NN crashes and there's no way to workaround
> unless you apply the patch in HADOOP-15696 to add a config switch for the
> idle timeout. Fortunately, it doesn't happen a lot.
> Propose: bump the idle timeout default to 200 seconds to match the behavior
> in Jetty 6. (Jetty 9 reduces the default idle timeout to 30 seconds, which is
> not suitable for JN)
> Other things to consider:
> 1. fsck serverlet? (somehow I suspect this is related to the socket timeout
> reported in HDFS-7175)
> 2. webhdfs, httpfs? --> we've also received reports that webhdfs can timeout.
> so having a longer timeout makes sense here.
> 2. kms? will the longer timeout cause more lingering sockets?
> Thanks [~zhenshan.wen] for the discussion.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
