[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14124903#comment-14124903
]
Rafal Wojdyla commented on HDFS-6621:
-------------------------------------
Hi [~yzhangal]
Thanks for comments, sorry for delay.
First of all - I agree that first problem is more important, and we should just
merge it in.
About solution to second problem, do we agree that the problem exists?
Especially with big number of threads such waking up for some threads may be
lethal even with fix for first problem. Is that correct?
It's been a while since I've made this change, and afair I tested both
problems/solutions and it they were separate problems, both of them cause
premature exists. First problem was more lethal tho.
About your comment with waiting - your are completely right! I missed this in
the patch. Now I see even more the value of pushing-patches/creating-tickets
right away ... not waiting till you have a bunch of changes.
> Hadoop Balancer prematurely exits iterations
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-6621
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6621
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: balancer
> Affects Versions: 2.2.0, 2.4.0
> Environment: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.8 with Hadoop
> 2.4.0
> Reporter: Benjamin Bowman
> Labels: balancer
> Attachments: HDFS-6621.patch, HDFS-6621.patch_2
>
>
> I have been having an issue with the balancing being too slow. The issue was
> not with the speed with which blocks were moved, but rather the balancer
> would prematurely exit out of it's balancing iterations. It would move ~10
> blocks or 100 MB then exit the current iteration (in which it said it was
> planning on moving about 10 GB).
> I looked in the Balancer.java code and believe I found and solved the issue.
> In the dispatchBlocks() function there is a variable,
> "noPendingBlockIteration", which counts the number of iterations in which a
> pending block to move cannot be found. Once this number gets to 5, the
> balancer exits the overall balancing iteration. I believe the desired
> functionality is 5 consecutive no pending block iterations - however this
> variable is never reset to 0 upon block moves. So once this number reaches 5
> - even if there have been thousands of blocks moved in between these no
> pending block iterations - the overall balancing iteration will prematurely
> end.
> The fix I applied was to set noPendingBlockIteration = 0 when a pending block
> is found and scheduled. In this way, my iterations do not prematurely exit
> unless there is 5 consecutive no pending block iterations. Below is a copy
> of my dispatchBlocks() function with the change I made.
> {code}
> private void dispatchBlocks() {
> long startTime = Time.now();
> long scheduledSize = getScheduledSize();
> this.blocksToReceive = 2*scheduledSize;
> boolean isTimeUp = false;
> int noPendingBlockIteration = 0;
> while(!isTimeUp && getScheduledSize()>0 &&
> (!srcBlockList.isEmpty() || blocksToReceive>0)) {
> PendingBlockMove pendingBlock = chooseNextBlockToMove();
> if (pendingBlock != null) {
> noPendingBlockIteration = 0;
> // move the block
> pendingBlock.scheduleBlockMove();
> continue;
> }
> /* Since we can not schedule any block to move,
> * filter any moved blocks from the source block list and
> * check if we should fetch more blocks from the namenode
> */
> filterMovedBlocks(); // filter already moved blocks
> if (shouldFetchMoreBlocks()) {
> // fetch new blocks
> try {
> blocksToReceive -= getBlockList();
> continue;
> } catch (IOException e) {
> LOG.warn("Exception while getting block list", e);
> return;
> }
> } else {
> // source node cannot find a pendingBlockToMove, iteration +1
> noPendingBlockIteration++;
> // in case no blocks can be moved for source node's task,
> // jump out of while-loop after 5 iterations.
> if (noPendingBlockIteration >= MAX_NO_PENDING_BLOCK_ITERATIONS) {
> setScheduledSize(0);
> }
> }
> // check if time is up or not
> if (Time.now()-startTime > MAX_ITERATION_TIME) {
> isTimeUp = true;
> continue;
> }
> /* Now we can not schedule any block to move and there are
> * no new blocks added to the source block list, so we wait.
> */
> try {
> synchronized(Balancer.this) {
> Balancer.this.wait(1000); // wait for targets/sources to be idle
> }
> } catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
> }
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
