[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3148?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13245686#comment-13245686
]
Eli Collins commented on HDFS-3148:
-----------------------------------
Hey Suresh,
This feature is actually independent of all the other hdfs-3140 sub-tasks, and
multihoming in general, and therefore does not require any further jiras. It
covers using multiple interfaces on the *client* side, the others are all about
using multiple jiras on the *server* side. These can both be used
independently, eg it's just as valuable to use multiple local interfaces on the
client side even if you don't use multihoming on the server side. Happy to
pull it out to it's own top-level jira if that's more clear. Ditto, lemme know
if you think the other HDFS-3140 jiras should be in a branch. Just enabling
multihoming requires HDFS-3146 and HDFS-3147 and a branch for a couple jiras
felt like overkill. Much of the work has been in the cleanup of DatanodeID and
friends.
Thanks,
Eli
> The client should be able to use multiple local interfaces for data transfer
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-3148
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3148
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: hdfs client
> Reporter: Eli Collins
> Assignee: Eli Collins
> Fix For: 1.1.0, 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: hdfs-3148-b1.txt, hdfs-3148-b1.txt, hdfs-3148.txt,
> hdfs-3148.txt, hdfs-3148.txt
>
>
> HDFS-3147 covers using multiple interfaces on the server (Datanode) side.
> Clients should also be able to utilize multiple *local* interfaces for
> outbound connections instead of always using the interface for the local
> hostname. This can be accomplished with a new configuration parameter
> ({{dfs.client.local.interfaces}}) that accepts a list of interfaces the
> client should use. Acceptable configuration values are the same as the
> {{dfs.datanode.available.interfaces}} parameter. The client binds its socket
> to a specific interface, which enables outbound traffic to use that
> interface. Binding the client socket to a specific address is not sufficient
> to ensure egress traffic uses that interface. Eg if multiple interfaces are
> on the same subnet the host requires IP rules that use the source address
> (which bind sets) to select the destination interface. The SO_BINDTODEVICE
> socket option could be used to select a specific interface for the connection
> instead, however it requires JNI (is not in Java's SocketOptions) and root
> access, which we don't want to require clients have.
> Like HDFS-3147, the client can use multiple local interfaces for data
> transfer. Since the client already cache their connections to DNs choosing a
> local interface at random seems like a good policy. Users can also pin a
> specific client to a specific interface by specifying just that interface in
> dfs.client.local.interfaces.
> This change was discussed in HADOOP-6210 a while back, and is actually
> useful/independent of the other HDFS-3140 changes.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
