Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Konstantin Shvachko]

Hi Sanjay,

With respect to Ozone my two main concerns were:
1. Wether Ozone can help scaling out the namespace service in handling
higher RPC workloads.
I think we came to common conclusion that using Ozone as a block management
layer is a reasonable path to scaling HDFS.
The discussions are in-progress and probably will go on for a while.
2. Releasing Hadoop with components that don't have security. I was asking
for a design doc at a minimum.
I think the document Anu published addresses it.

Thanks,
Konstantin

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:06 PM, sanjay Radia  wrote:

>
>
>
> Konstantine
>
>
> Thanks for your feedback and comments over the last few months.  Have we
> addressed all your  issues and concerns?
>
> sanjay
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 2018, at 6:28 PM, sanjay Radia  wrote:
> >
> > Sorry the formatting got messed by my email client.  Here it is again
> >
> >
> > Dear
> > Hadoop Community Members,
> >
> >  We had multiple community discussions, a few meetings in smaller groups
> and also jira discussions with respect to this thread. We express our
> gratitude for participation and valuable comments.
> >
> > The key questions raised were following
> > 1) How the new block storage layer and OzoneFS benefit HDFS and we were
> asked to chalk out a roadmap towards the goal of a scalable namenode
> working with the new storage layer
> > 2) We were asked to provide a security design
> > 3)There were questions around stability given ozone brings in a large
> body of code.
> > 4) Why can’t they be separate projects forever or merged in when
> production ready?
> >
> > We have responded to all the above questions with detailed explanations
> and answers on the jira as well as in the discussions. We believe that
> should sufficiently address community’s concerns.
> >
> > Please see the summary below:
> >
> > 1) The new code base benefits HDFS scaling and a roadmap has been
> provided.
> >
> > Summary:
> > - New block storage layer addresses the scalability of the block layer.
> We have shown how existing NN can be connected to the new block layer and
> its benefits. We have shown 2 milestones, 1st milestone is much simpler
> than 2nd milestone while giving almost the same scaling benefits.
> Originally we had proposed simply milestone 2 and the community felt that
> removing the FSN/BM lock was was a fair amount of work and a simpler
> solution would be useful
> > - We provide a new K-V namespace called Ozone FS with
> FileSystem/FileContext plugins to allow the users to use the new system.
> BTW Hive and Spark work very well on KV-namespaces on the cloud. This will
> facilitate stabilizing the new block layer.
> > - The new block layer has a new netty based protocol engine in the
> Datanode which, when stabilized, can be used by  the old hdfs block layer.
> See details below on sharing of code.
> >
> >
> > 2) Stability impact on the existing HDFS code base and code separation.
> The new block layer and the OzoneFS are in modules that are separate from
> old HDFS code - currently there are no calls from HDFS into Ozone except
> for DN starting the new block  layer module if configured to do so. It does
> not add instability (the instability argument has been raised many times).
> Over time as we share code, we will ensure that the old HDFS continues to
> remains stable. (for example we plan to stabilize the new netty based
> protocol engine in the new block layer before sharing it with HDFS’s old
> block layer)
> >
> >
> > 3) In the short term and medium term, the new system and HDFS  will be
> used side-by-side by users. Side by-side usage in the short term for
> testing and side-by-side in the medium term for actual production use till
> the new system has feature parity with old HDFS. During this time, sharing
> the DN daemon and admin functions between the two systems is operationally
> important:
> > - Sharing DN daemon to avoid additional operational daemon lifecycle
> management
> > - Common decommissioning of the daemon and DN: One place to decommission
> for a node and its storage.
> > - Replacing failed disks and internal balancing capacity across disks -
> this needs to be done for both the current HDFS blocks and the new
> block-layer blocks.
> > - Balancer: we would like use the same balancer and provide a common way
> to balance and common management of the bandwidth used for balancing
> > - Security configuration setup - reuse existing set up for DNs rather
> then a new one for an independent cluster.
> >
> >
> > 4) Need to easily share the block layer code between the two systems
> when used side-by-side. Areas where sharing code is desired over time:
> > - Sharing new block layer’s  new netty based protocol engine for old
> HDFS DNs (a long time sore issue for HDFS block layer).
> > - Shallow data copy from old system to new system is practical only if
> within same project and daemon otherwise have to deal with security setting
> and coordinations across 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[sanjay Radia]

Konstantine


Thanks for your feedback and comments over the last few months.  Have we 
addressed all your  issues and concerns?

sanjay


> On Feb 13, 2018, at 6:28 PM, sanjay Radia  wrote:
> 
> Sorry the formatting got messed by my email client.  Here it is again
> 
> 
> Dear
> Hadoop Community Members,
> 
>  We had multiple community discussions, a few meetings in smaller groups and 
> also jira discussions with respect to this thread. We express our gratitude 
> for participation and valuable comments. 
> 
> The key questions raised were following
> 1) How the new block storage layer and OzoneFS benefit HDFS and we were asked 
> to chalk out a roadmap towards the goal of a scalable namenode working with 
> the new storage layer
> 2) We were asked to provide a security design
> 3)There were questions around stability given ozone brings in a large body of 
> code.
> 4) Why can’t they be separate projects forever or merged in when production 
> ready?
> 
> We have responded to all the above questions with detailed explanations and 
> answers on the jira as well as in the discussions. We believe that should 
> sufficiently address community’s concerns. 
> 
> Please see the summary below:
> 
> 1) The new code base benefits HDFS scaling and a roadmap has been provided. 
> 
> Summary:
> - New block storage layer addresses the scalability of the block layer. We 
> have shown how existing NN can be connected to the new block layer and its 
> benefits. We have shown 2 milestones, 1st milestone is much simpler than 2nd 
> milestone while giving almost the same scaling benefits. Originally we had 
> proposed simply milestone 2 and the community felt that removing the FSN/BM 
> lock was was a fair amount of work and a simpler solution would be useful
> - We provide a new K-V namespace called Ozone FS with FileSystem/FileContext 
> plugins to allow the users to use the new system. BTW Hive and Spark work 
> very well on KV-namespaces on the cloud. This will facilitate stabilizing the 
> new block layer. 
> - The new block layer has a new netty based protocol engine in the Datanode 
> which, when stabilized, can be used by  the old hdfs block layer. See details 
> below on sharing of code.
> 
> 
> 2) Stability impact on the existing HDFS code base and code separation. The 
> new block layer and the OzoneFS are in modules that are separate from old 
> HDFS code - currently there are no calls from HDFS into Ozone except for DN 
> starting the new block  layer module if configured to do so. It does not add 
> instability (the instability argument has been raised many times). Over time 
> as we share code, we will ensure that the old HDFS continues to remains 
> stable. (for example we plan to stabilize the new netty based protocol engine 
> in the new block layer before sharing it with HDFS’s old block layer)
> 
> 
> 3) In the short term and medium term, the new system and HDFS  will be used 
> side-by-side by users. Side by-side usage in the short term for testing and 
> side-by-side in the medium term for actual production use till the new system 
> has feature parity with old HDFS. During this time, sharing the DN daemon and 
> admin functions between the two systems is operationally important:  
> - Sharing DN daemon to avoid additional operational daemon lifecycle 
> management
> - Common decommissioning of the daemon and DN: One place to decommission for 
> a node and its storage.
> - Replacing failed disks and internal balancing capacity across disks - this 
> needs to be done for both the current HDFS blocks and the new block-layer 
> blocks.
> - Balancer: we would like use the same balancer and provide a common way to 
> balance and common management of the bandwidth used for balancing
> - Security configuration setup - reuse existing set up for DNs rather then a 
> new one for an independent cluster.
> 
> 
> 4) Need to easily share the block layer code between the two systems when 
> used side-by-side. Areas where sharing code is desired over time: 
> - Sharing new block layer’s  new netty based protocol engine for old HDFS DNs 
> (a long time sore issue for HDFS block layer). 
> - Shallow data copy from old system to new system is practical only if within 
> same project and daemon otherwise have to deal with security setting and 
> coordinations across daemons. Shallow copy is useful as customer migrate from 
> old to new.
> - Shared disk scheduling in the future and in the short term have a single 
> round robin rather than independent round robins.
> While sharing code across projects is technically possible (anything is 
> possible in software),  it is significantly harder typically requiring  
> cleaner public apis etc. Sharing within a project though internal APIs is 
> often simpler (such as the protocol engine that we want to share).
> 
> 
> 5) Security design, including a threat model and and the solution has been 
> posted.
> 6) Temporary Separation and merge later: Several 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[sanjay Radia]

Sorry the formatting got messed by my email client.  Here it is again


Dear
 Hadoop Community Members,

   We had multiple community discussions, a few meetings in smaller groups and 
also jira discussions with respect to this thread. We express our gratitude for 
participation and valuable comments. 

The key questions raised were following
1) How the new block storage layer and OzoneFS benefit HDFS and we were asked 
to chalk out a roadmap towards the goal of a scalable namenode working with the 
new storage layer
2) We were asked to provide a security design
3)There were questions around stability given ozone brings in a large body of 
code.
4) Why can’t they be separate projects forever or merged in when production 
ready?

We have responded to all the above questions with detailed explanations and 
answers on the jira as well as in the discussions. We believe that should 
sufficiently address community’s concerns. 

Please see the summary below:

1) The new code base benefits HDFS scaling and a roadmap has been provided. 

Summary:
  - New block storage layer addresses the scalability of the block layer. We 
have shown how existing NN can be connected to the new block layer and its 
benefits. We have shown 2 milestones, 1st milestone is much simpler than 2nd 
milestone while giving almost the same scaling benefits. Originally we had 
proposed simply milestone 2 and the community felt that removing the FSN/BM 
lock was was a fair amount of work and a simpler solution would be useful
  - We provide a new K-V namespace called Ozone FS with FileSystem/FileContext 
plugins to allow the users to use the new system. BTW Hive and Spark work very 
well on KV-namespaces on the cloud. This will facilitate stabilizing the new 
block layer. 
  - The new block layer has a new netty based protocol engine in the Datanode 
which, when stabilized, can be used by  the old hdfs block layer. See details 
below on sharing of code.


2) Stability impact on the existing HDFS code base and code separation. The new 
block layer and the OzoneFS are in modules that are separate from old HDFS code 
- currently there are no calls from HDFS into Ozone except for DN starting the 
new block  layer module if configured to do so. It does not add instability 
(the instability argument has been raised many times). Over time as we share 
code, we will ensure that the old HDFS continues to remains stable. (for 
example we plan to stabilize the new netty based protocol engine in the new 
block layer before sharing it with HDFS’s old block layer)


3) In the short term and medium term, the new system and HDFS  will be used 
side-by-side by users. Side by-side usage in the short term for testing and 
side-by-side in the medium term for actual production use till the new system 
has feature parity with old HDFS. During this time, sharing the DN daemon and 
admin functions between the two systems is operationally important:  
  - Sharing DN daemon to avoid additional operational daemon lifecycle 
management
  - Common decommissioning of the daemon and DN: One place to decommission for 
a node and its storage.
  - Replacing failed disks and internal balancing capacity across disks - this 
needs to be done for both the current HDFS blocks and the new block-layer 
blocks.
  - Balancer: we would like use the same balancer and provide a common way to 
balance and common management of the bandwidth used for balancing
  - Security configuration setup - reuse existing set up for DNs rather then a 
new one for an independent cluster.


4) Need to easily share the block layer code between the two systems when used 
side-by-side. Areas where sharing code is desired over time: 
  - Sharing new block layer’s  new netty based protocol engine for old HDFS DNs 
(a long time sore issue for HDFS block layer). 
  - Shallow data copy from old system to new system is practical only if within 
same project and daemon otherwise have to deal with security setting and 
coordinations across daemons. Shallow copy is useful as customer migrate from 
old to new.
  - Shared disk scheduling in the future and in the short term have a single 
round robin rather than independent round robins.
While sharing code across projects is technically possible (anything is 
possible in software),  it is significantly harder typically requiring  cleaner 
public apis etc. Sharing within a project though internal APIs is often simpler 
(such as the protocol engine that we want to share).


5) Security design, including a threat model and and the solution has been 
posted.
6) Temporary Separation and merge later: Several of the comments in the jira 
have argued that we temporarily separate the two code bases for now and then 
later merge them when the new code is stable:

  - If there is agreement to merge later, why bother separating now - there 
needs to be to be good reasons to separate now.  We have addressed the 
stability and separation of the new code from existing above.
  - Merge 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[sanjay Radia]

Dear Hadoop Community Members,

We had multiple community discussions, a few meetings in smaller groups and 
also jira discussions with respect to this thread. We express our gratitude for 
participation and valuable comments. The key questions raised were following 
How the new block storage layer and OzoneFS benefit HDFS and we were asked to 
chalk out a roadmap towards the goal of a scalable namenode working with the 
new storage layer
We were asked to provide a security design
There were questions around stability given ozone brings in a large body of 
code.
Why can’t they be separate projects forever or merged in when production ready?

We have responded to all the above questions with detailed explanations and 
answers on the jira as well as in the discussions. We believe that should 
sufficiently address community’s concerns. Please see the summary below:

The new code base benefits to HDFS scaling and a roadmap has been provided. 
Summary:
New block storage layer addresses the scalability of the block layer. We have 
shown how existing NN can be connected to the new block layer and its benefits. 
We have shown 2 milestones, 1st milestone is much simpler than 2nd milestone 
while giving almost the same scaling benefits.  Originally we had proposed 
simply milestone 2 and the community felt that removing the FSN/BM lock was was 
a fair amount of work and a simpler solution would be useful.
We provide a new K-V namespace called Ozone FS with FileSystem/FileContext 
plugins to allow the users to use the new system. BTW Hive and Spark work very 
well on KV-namespaces on the cloud. This will facilitate stabilizing the new 
block layer. 
The new block layer has a new netty based protocol engine in the Datanode 
which, when stabilized, can be used by the old hdfs block layer. See details 
below on sharing of code.
Stability impact on the existing HDFS code base and code separation. The new 
block layer and the OzoneFS are in modules that are separate from old HDFS code 
- currently there are no calls from HDFS into Ozone except for DN starting the 
new block  layer module if configured to do so. It does not add instability 
(the instability argument has been raised many times). Over time as we share 
code, we will ensure that the old HDFS continues to remains stable. (for 
example we plan to stabilize the new netty based protocol engine in the new 
block layer before sharing it with HDFS’s old block layer)
In the short term and medium term, the new system and HDFS  will be used 
side-by-side by users. Side by-side usage in the short term for testing and 
side-by-side in the medium term for actual production use till the new system 
has feature parity with old HDFS. During this time, sharing the DN daemon and 
admin functions between the two systems is operationally important:  
Sharing DN daemon to avoid additional operational daemon lifecycle management
Common decommissioning of the daemon and DN: One place to decommission for a 
node and its storage.
Replacing failed disks and internal balancing capacity across disks - this 
needs to be done for both the current HDFS blocks and the new block-layer 
blocks.
Balancer: we would like use the same balancer and provide a common way to 
balance and common management of the bandwidth used for balancing
Security configuration setup - reuse existing set up for DNs rather then a new 
one for an independent cluster.
Need to easily share the block layer code between the two systems when used 
side-by-side. Areas where sharing code is desired over time: 
Sharing new block layer’s  new netty based protocol engine for old HDFS DNs (a 
long time sore issue for HDFS block layer). 
Shallow data copy from old system to new system is practical only if within 
same project and daemon otherwise have to deal with security setting and 
coordinations across daemons. Shallow copy is useful as customer migrate from 
old to new.
Shared disk scheduling in the future and in the short term have a single round 
robin rather than independent round robins.
While sharing code across projects is technically possible (anything is 
possible in software),  it is significantly harder typically requiring  cleaner 
public apis etc. Sharing within a project though internal APIs is often simpler 
(such as the protocol engine that we want to share).
Security design, including a threat model and and the solution has been posted.
Temporary Separation and merge later: Several of the comments in the jira have 
argued that we temporarily separate the two code bases for now and then later 
merge them when the new code is stable:
If there is agreement to merge later, why bother separating now - there needs 
to be to be good reasons to separate now.  We have addressed the stability and 
separation of the new code from existing above.
Merge the new code back into HDFS later will be harder. 
The code and goals will diverge further. 
We will be taking on extra work to split and then take extra work to 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Konstantin Shvachko]

Hi Sanjay,

Read your doc. I clearly see the value of Ozone with your use cases, but I
agree with Stack and others the question why it should be a part of Hadoop
isn't clear. More details in the jira:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7240?focusedCommentId=16239313=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16239313

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:56 PM, sanjay Radia  wrote:

> Konstantine,
>  Thanks for your comments, questions and feedback. I have attached a
> document to the HDFS-7240 jira
>  that explains a design for scaling HDFS and how Ozone paves the way
> towards the full solution.
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/
> 12895963/HDFS%20Scalability%20and%20Ozone.pdf
>
>
> sanjay
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko 
> wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
> There are two main reasons why I think it should not.
>
> 1. With close to 500 sub-tasks, with 6 MB of code changes, and with a
> sizable community behind, it looks to me like a whole new project.
> It is essentially a new storage system, with different (than HDFS)
> architecture, separate S3-like APIs. This is really great - the World sure
> needs more distributed file systems. But it is not clear why Ozone should
> co-exist with HDFS under the same roof.
>
> 2. Ozone is probably just the first step in rebuilding HDFS under a new
> architecture. With the next steps presumably being HDFS-10419 and
> HDFS-8.
> The design doc for the new architecture has never been published. I can
> only assume based on some presentations and personal communications that
> the idea is to use Ozone as a block storage, and re-implement NameNode, so
> that it stores only a partial namesapce in memory, while the bulk of it
> (cold data) is persisted to a local storage.
> Such architecture makes me wonder if it solves Hadoop's main problems.
> There are two main limitations in HDFS:
>  a. The throughput of Namespace operations. Which is limited by the number
> of RPCs the NameNode can handle
>  b. The number of objects (files + blocks) the system can maintain. Which
> is limited by the memory size of the NameNode.
> The RPC performance (a) is more important for Hadoop scalability than the
> object count (b). The read RPCs being the main priority.
> The new architecture targets the object count problem, but in the expense
> of the RPC throughput. Which seems to be a wrong resolution of the
> tradeoff.
> Also based on the use patterns on our large clusters we read up to 90% of
> the data we write, so cold data is a small fraction and most of it must be
> cached.
>
> To summarize:
> - Ozone is a big enough system to deserve its own project.
> - The architecture that Ozone leads to does not seem to solve the intrinsic
> problems of current HDFS.
>
> I will post my opinion in the Ozone jira. Should be more convenient to
> discuss it there for further reference.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei 
> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
> HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes
> varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>
>
>
> The merge payload includes the following:
>
>  1.  All services, management scripts
>  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation,
> passes all FileSystem contract tests)
>  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
>  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
>
>
> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in
> this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
>
>
> We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature
> development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3
> years since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we
> have resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from
> different countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large
> number of community members who were supportive of our efforts and
> contributed ideas and participated in the design of ozone.
>
>
> Please share your thoughts, thanks!
>
>
> -- Weiwei Yang
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei 
> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
> trunk. This feature implements 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli]

>   At a minimum, it should at least be using it’s own maven module for a 
> lot of the bits that generates it’s own maven jars so that we can split this 
> functionality up at build/test time.


I expected this to be the case, but looks like it isn't.

There's lot of value in splitting the HDFS code into smaller modules. 
Definitely newer code like Ozone.

When we did this for YARN, initially there were concerns about module 
proliferation, but looking back, my observations have been that it has done us 
far more good than expected. Starting with the fact that we had clients and 
servers modularized independently, as well as servers from other servers, with 
far cleaner contracts than what we had in Hadoop 1 world.

Thanks
+Vinod

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Ravi Prakash]

Hi folks!

Thank you for sharing the design docs and the tremendous amount of work
that has gone into Ozone. I'm grateful that atleast someone is trying to
drastically improve HDFS.

*If* there is a meeting to discuss this merge, could I please also be
invited?

Have we ever thought about distributing the Namenode metadata across nodes
dynamically based on load and RPC times (unlike static federation that we
have now)?

Also, I think a major feature that HDFS still lacks (and a lot of our users
ask for) is BCP / Disaster Recovery. I only bring this up to see if the
choice of proposed design would have implications for that later on.

Thanks,
Ravi

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:56 PM, sanjay Radia  wrote:

> Konstantine,
>  Thanks for your comments, questions and feedback. I have attached a
> document to the HDFS-7240 jira
>  that explains a design for scaling HDFS and how Ozone paves the way
> towards the full solution.
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/
> 12895963/HDFS%20Scalability%20and%20Ozone.pdf
>
>
> sanjay
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
> > There are two main reasons why I think it should not.
> >
> > 1. With close to 500 sub-tasks, with 6 MB of code changes, and with a
> > sizable community behind, it looks to me like a whole new project.
> > It is essentially a new storage system, with different (than HDFS)
> > architecture, separate S3-like APIs. This is really great - the World
> sure
> > needs more distributed file systems. But it is not clear why Ozone should
> > co-exist with HDFS under the same roof.
> >
> > 2. Ozone is probably just the first step in rebuilding HDFS under a new
> > architecture. With the next steps presumably being HDFS-10419 and
> > HDFS-8.
> > The design doc for the new architecture has never been published. I can
> > only assume based on some presentations and personal communications that
> > the idea is to use Ozone as a block storage, and re-implement NameNode,
> so
> > that it stores only a partial namesapce in memory, while the bulk of it
> > (cold data) is persisted to a local storage.
> > Such architecture makes me wonder if it solves Hadoop's main problems.
> > There are two main limitations in HDFS:
> >  a. The throughput of Namespace operations. Which is limited by the
> number
> > of RPCs the NameNode can handle
> >  b. The number of objects (files + blocks) the system can maintain. Which
> > is limited by the memory size of the NameNode.
> > The RPC performance (a) is more important for Hadoop scalability than the
> > object count (b). The read RPCs being the main priority.
> > The new architecture targets the object count problem, but in the expense
> > of the RPC throughput. Which seems to be a wrong resolution of the
> tradeoff.
> > Also based on the use patterns on our large clusters we read up to 90% of
> > the data we write, so cold data is a small fraction and most of it must
> be
> > cached.
> >
> > To summarize:
> > - Ozone is a big enough system to deserve its own project.
> > - The architecture that Ozone leads to does not seem to solve the
> intrinsic
> > problems of current HDFS.
> >
> > I will post my opinion in the Ozone jira. Should be more convenient to
> > discuss it there for further reference.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Konstantin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >>
> >> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240)
> to
> >> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
> >> HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster
> sizes
> >> varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The merge payload includes the following:
> >>
> >>  1.  All services, management scripts
> >>  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
> >>  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
> >>  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
> >>  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation,
> >> passes all FileSystem contract tests)
> >>  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
> >>  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
> >>  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
> >>  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
> >>
> >>
> >> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in
> >> this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> >> uence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
> >>
> >>
> >> We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature
> >> development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3
> >> years since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we
> >> have resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[sanjay Radia]

Konstantine, 
 Thanks for your comments, questions and feedback. I have attached a document 
to the HDFS-7240 jira 
 that explains a design for scaling HDFS and how Ozone paves the way towards 
the full solution.


https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12895963/HDFS%20Scalability%20and%20Ozone.pdf


sanjay




> On Oct 28, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko  wrote:
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
> There are two main reasons why I think it should not.
> 
> 1. With close to 500 sub-tasks, with 6 MB of code changes, and with a
> sizable community behind, it looks to me like a whole new project.
> It is essentially a new storage system, with different (than HDFS)
> architecture, separate S3-like APIs. This is really great - the World sure
> needs more distributed file systems. But it is not clear why Ozone should
> co-exist with HDFS under the same roof.
> 
> 2. Ozone is probably just the first step in rebuilding HDFS under a new
> architecture. With the next steps presumably being HDFS-10419 and
> HDFS-8.
> The design doc for the new architecture has never been published. I can
> only assume based on some presentations and personal communications that
> the idea is to use Ozone as a block storage, and re-implement NameNode, so
> that it stores only a partial namesapce in memory, while the bulk of it
> (cold data) is persisted to a local storage.
> Such architecture makes me wonder if it solves Hadoop's main problems.
> There are two main limitations in HDFS:
>  a. The throughput of Namespace operations. Which is limited by the number
> of RPCs the NameNode can handle
>  b. The number of objects (files + blocks) the system can maintain. Which
> is limited by the memory size of the NameNode.
> The RPC performance (a) is more important for Hadoop scalability than the
> object count (b). The read RPCs being the main priority.
> The new architecture targets the object count problem, but in the expense
> of the RPC throughput. Which seems to be a wrong resolution of the tradeoff.
> Also based on the use patterns on our large clusters we read up to 90% of
> the data we write, so cold data is a small fraction and most of it must be
> cached.
> 
> To summarize:
> - Ozone is a big enough system to deserve its own project.
> - The architecture that Ozone leads to does not seem to solve the intrinsic
> problems of current HDFS.
> 
> I will post my opinion in the Ozone jira. Should be more convenient to
> discuss it there for further reference.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei  wrote:
> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
>> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
>> HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes
>> varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The merge payload includes the following:
>> 
>>  1.  All services, management scripts
>>  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>>  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>>  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>>  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation,
>> passes all FileSystem contract tests)
>>  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>>  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>>  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
>>  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
>> 
>> 
>> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in
>> this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
>> uence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
>> 
>> 
>> We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature
>> development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3
>> years since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we
>> have resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from
>> different countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large
>> number of community members who were supportive of our efforts and
>> contributed ideas and participated in the design of ozone.
>> 
>> 
>> Please share your thoughts, thanks!
>> 
>> 
>> -- Weiwei Yang
>> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei  wrote:
> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
>> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
>> HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes
>> varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The merge payload includes the following:
>> 
>>  1.  All services, management scripts
>>  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>>  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>>  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Allen Wittenauer]

> On Nov 3, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Stack  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko 
> wrote:
> 
>> It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
> 
> I don't see a direct answer to this question. Is there one? Pardon me if
> I've not seen it but I'm interested in the response.

+1

Given:

* a completely different set of config files (ozone-site.xml, etc)
* package name is org.apache.hadoop.ozone, not 
org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.ozone

… it doesn’t really seem to want to be part of HDFS, much less Hadoop.

Plus hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs is already a battle zone when it comes to 
unit tests, dependencies, etc [*]

At a minimum, it should at least be using it’s own maven module for a 
lot of the bits that generates it’s own maven jars so that we can split this 
functionality up at build/test time.

At a higher level, this feels a lot like the design decisions that were 
made around yarn-native-services.  This feature is either part of HDFS or it’s 
not. Pick one.  Doing both is incredibly confusing for everyone outside of the 
branch.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Re: 答复: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Xiaoyu Yao]

> somewhere?
> >
> > 3. Encryption
> >
> > 3.1. Is there any support for encryption of persisted data?
> > 3.2. If so, is KMS and the hadoop key command used for key 
management?
> >
> > 4. Configuration
> >
> > 4.1. Are there any passwords or secrets being added to 
configuration?
> > 4.2. If so, are they accessed via Configuration.getPassword() to 
allow for
> > provisioning in credential providers?
> > 4.3. Are there any settings that are used to launch docker 
containers or
> > shell out any commands, etc?
> >
> > 5. HA
> >
> > 5.1. Are there provisions for HA?
> > 5.2. Are we leveraging the existing HA capabilities in HDFS?
> > 5.3. Is Storage Container Manager a SPOF?
> > 5.4. I see HA listed in future work in the architecture doc - is 
this
> > still an open issue?
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Anu Engineer 
<aengin...@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Steve,
> >>
> >> In addition to everything Weiwei mentioned (chapter 3 of user 
guide), if
> >> you really want to drill down to REST protocol you might want to 
apply this
> >> patch and build ozone.
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12690
> >>
> >> This will generate an Open API (https://www.openapis.org ,
> >> http://swagger.io) based specification which can be accessed from 
KSM UI
> >> or just as a json file.
> >> Unfortunately, this patch is still at code review stage, so you 
will have
> >> to apply the patch and build it yourself.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Anu
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/20/17, 6:09 AM, "Yang Weiwei" <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Steve
> >>
> >>
> >> The code is available in HDFS-7240 feature branch, public git 
repo
> >> here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/HDFS-7240>.
> >>
> >> I am not sure if there is a "public" API for object stores, 
but the
> >> design doc<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/1279954
    > >> 9/ozone_user_v0.pdf> uses most common syntax so I believe it 
should be
> >> compliance. You can find the rest API doc 
here<https://github.com/apache
> >> /hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/
> >> site/markdown/OzoneRest.md> (with some example usages), and 
commandline
> >> API here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-
> >> hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneCommandShell.md>.
> >>
> >>
> >> Look forward for your feedback!
> >>
> >>
> >> --Weiwei
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> 发件人: Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
> >> 发送时间: 2017年10月20日 11:49
> >> 收件人: Yang Weiwei
> >> 抄送: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; 
mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org;
> >> yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >> 主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to 
trunk
> >>
> >>
> >> Wow, big piece of work
> >>
> >> 1. Where is a PR/branch on github with rendered docs for us to 
look
> >> at?
> >> 2. Have you made any public APi changes related to object 
stores?
> >> That's probably something I'll have opinions on more than 
implementation
> >> details.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>
> >> > On 19 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Yang Weiwei 
<cheersy...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello everyone,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone
> >> (HDFS-7240) to trunk. This feature implemen

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Stack]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko 
wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
>


I don't see a direct answer to this question. Is there one? Pardon me if
I've not seen it but I'm interested in the response.

I ask because IMO the "Hadoop" project is over-stuffed already. Just see
the length of the cc list on this email. Ozone could be standalone. It is a
coherent enough effort.

Thanks,
St.Ack





> There are two main reasons why I think it should not.
>
1. With close to 500 sub-tasks, with 6 MB of code changes, and with a
> sizable community behind, it looks to me like a whole new project.
> It is essentially a new storage system, with different (than HDFS)
> architecture, separate S3-like APIs. This is really great - the World sure
> needs more distributed file systems. But it is not clear why Ozone should
> co-exist with HDFS under the same roof.
>
> 2. Ozone is probably just the first step in rebuilding HDFS under a new
> architecture. With the next steps presumably being HDFS-10419 and
> HDFS-8.
> The design doc for the new architecture has never been published. I can
> only assume based on some presentations and personal communications that
> the idea is to use Ozone as a block storage, and re-implement NameNode, so
> that it stores only a partial namesapce in memory, while the bulk of it
> (cold data) is persisted to a local storage.
> Such architecture makes me wonder if it solves Hadoop's main problems.
> There are two main limitations in HDFS:
>   a. The throughput of Namespace operations. Which is limited by the number
> of RPCs the NameNode can handle
>   b. The number of objects (files + blocks) the system can maintain. Which
> is limited by the memory size of the NameNode.
> The RPC performance (a) is more important for Hadoop scalability than the
> object count (b). The read RPCs being the main priority.
> The new architecture targets the object count problem, but in the expense
> of the RPC throughput. Which seems to be a wrong resolution of the
> tradeoff.
> Also based on the use patterns on our large clusters we read up to 90% of
> the data we write, so cold data is a small fraction and most of it must be
> cached.
>
> To summarize:
> - Ozone is a big enough system to deserve its own project.
> - The architecture that Ozone leads to does not seem to solve the intrinsic
> problems of current HDFS.
>
> I will post my opinion in the Ozone jira. Should be more convenient to
> discuss it there for further reference.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> >
> > I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
> > trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
> > HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster
> sizes
> > varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
> >
> >
> >
> > The merge payload includes the following:
> >
> >   1.  All services, management scripts
> >   2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
> >   3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
> >   4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
> >   5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation,
> > passes all FileSystem contract tests)
> >   6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
> >   7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
> >   8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
> >   9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
> >
> >
> > To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in
> > this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > uence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
> >
> >
> > We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature
> > development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3
> > years since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we
> > have resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from
> > different countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large
> > number of community members who were supportive of our efforts and
> > contributed ideas and participated in the design of ozone.
> >
> >
> > Please share your thoughts, thanks!
> >
> >
> > -- Weiwei Yang
> >
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> >
> > I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
> > trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
> > HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster
> sizes
> > varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
> >
> >
> >
> > The merge payload includes the following:
> >
> >   1.  All services, management scripts
> >   2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
> >   3.  Master service UIs, command line 

Re: 答复: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Lei Xu]

hentication is required for access to the UIs?
> > 1.4. What authorization is available for determining who can access what
> > capabilities of the UIs for either viewing, modifying data or affecting
> > object stores and related processes?
> > 1.5. Are the UIs built with proxying in mind by leveraging X-Forwarded
> > headers?
> > 1.6. Is there any input that will ultimately be persisted in 
> configuration
> > for executing shell commands or processes?
> > 1.7. Do the UIs support the trusted proxy pattern with doas 
> impersonation?
> > 1.8. Is there TLS/SSL support?
> >
> > 2. REST APIs
> >
> > 2.1. Do the REST APIs support the trusted proxy pattern with doas
> > impersonation capabilities?
> > 2.2. What explicit protections have been built in for:
> >   2.2.1. cross site scripting (XSS)
> >   2.2.2. cross site request forgery (CSRF)
> >   2.2.3. XML External Entity (XXE)
> > 2.3. What is being used for authentication - Hadoop Auth Module?
> > 2.4. Are there separate processes for the HTTP resources (UIs and REST
> > endpoints) or are the part of existing HDFS processes?
> > 2.5. Is there TLS/SSL support?
> > 2.6. Are there new CLI commands and/or clients for access the REST APIs?
> > 2.7. Bucket Level API allows for setting of ACLs on a bucket - what
> > authorization is required here - is there a restrictive ACL set on 
> creation?
> > 2.8. Bucket Level API allows for deleting a bucket - I assume this is
> > dependent on ACLs based access control?
> > 2.9. Bucket Level API to list bucket returns up to 1000 keys - is there
> > paging available?
> > 2.10. Storage Level APIs indicate “Signed with User Authorization” what
> > does this refer to exactly?
> > 2.11. Object Level APIs indicate that there is no ACL support and only
> > bucket owners can read and write - but there are ACL APIs on the Bucket
> > Level are they meaningless for now?
> > 2.12. How does a REST client know which Ozone Handler to connect to or 
> am
> > I missing some well known NN type endpoint in the architecture doc
> > somewhere?
> >
> > 3. Encryption
> >
> > 3.1. Is there any support for encryption of persisted data?
> > 3.2. If so, is KMS and the hadoop key command used for key management?
> >
> > 4. Configuration
> >
> > 4.1. Are there any passwords or secrets being added to configuration?
> > 4.2. If so, are they accessed via Configuration.getPassword() to allow 
> for
> > provisioning in credential providers?
> > 4.3. Are there any settings that are used to launch docker containers or
> > shell out any commands, etc?
> >
> > 5. HA
> >
> > 5.1. Are there provisions for HA?
> > 5.2. Are we leveraging the existing HA capabilities in HDFS?
> > 5.3. Is Storage Container Manager a SPOF?
> > 5.4. I see HA listed in future work in the architecture doc - is this
> > still an open issue?
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Anu Engineer 
> <aengin...@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Steve,
> >>
> >> In addition to everything Weiwei mentioned (chapter 3 of user guide), 
> if
> >> you really want to drill down to REST protocol you might want to apply 
> this
> >> patch and build ozone.
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12690
> >>
> >> This will generate an Open API (https://www.openapis.org ,
> >> http://swagger.io) based specification which can be accessed from KSM 
> UI
> >> or just as a json file.
> >> Unfortunately, this patch is still at code review stage, so you will 
> have
> >> to apply the patch and build it yourself.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Anu
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/20/17, 6:09 AM, "Yang Weiwei" <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Steve
> >>
> >>
> >> The code is available in HDFS-7240 feature branch, public git repo
> >> here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/HDFS-7240>.
> >>
> >> I am not sure if there is a "public" API for object stores, but the
> >> design doc<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/1279954
>  

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Jitendra Pandey]

Hi Konstantin,
 Thank you for taking out time to review ozone. I appreciate your comments and 
questions.

> There are two main limitations in HDFS
> a) The throughput of Namespace operations. Which is limited by the 
>number of RPCs the NameNode can handle
> b) The number of objects (files + blocks) the system can maintain. 
>Which is limited by the memory size of the NameNode.

   I agree completely. We believe ozone attempts to address both these issues 
for HDFS.
   
   Let us look at the Number of objects problem. Ozone directly addresses the 
scalability of number of blocks by introducing storage containers that can hold 
multiple blocks together. The earlier efforts on this were complicated by the 
fact that block manager and namespace are intertwined in HDFS Namenode. There 
have been efforts in past to separate block manager from namespace for e.g. 
HDFS-5477. Ozone addresses this problem by cleanly separating the block layer.  
Separation of block layer also addresses the file/directories scalability 
because it frees up the blockmap from the namenode.
   
   Separate block layer relieves namenode from handling block reports, IBRs, 
heartbeats, replication monitor etc, and thus reduces the contention on 
FSNamesystem lock and significantly reduces the GC pressure on the namenode. 
These improvements will greatly help the RPC performance of the Namenode.

> Ozone is probably just the first step in rebuilding HDFS under a new
> architecture. With the next steps presumably being HDFS-10419 and 
> HDFS-8. The design doc for the new architecture has never been 
> published.

  We do believe that Namenode can leverage the ozone’s storage container layer, 
however, that is also a big effort. We would like to first have block layer 
stabilized in ozone before taking that up. However, we would certainly support 
any community effort on that, and in fact it was brought up in last BoF session 
at the summit.

  Big data is evolving rapidly. We see our customers needing scalable file 
systems, Objects stores(like S3) and Block Store(for docker and VMs). Ozone 
improves HDFS in two ways. It addresses throughput and scale issues of HDFS, 
and enriches it with newer capabilities.


> Ozone is a big enough system to deserve its own project.

I took a quick look at the core code in ozone and the cloc command reports 
22,511 lines of functionality changes in Java.

This patch also brings in web framework code like Angular.js and that brings in 
bunch of css and js files that contribute to the size of the patch, and the 
rest are test and documentation changes.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Best regards,
jitendra

On 10/28/17, 2:00 PM, "Konstantin Shvachko"  wrote:

Hey guys,

It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
There are two main reasons why I think it should not.

1. With close to 500 sub-tasks, with 6 MB of code changes, and with a
sizable community behind, it looks to me like a whole new project.
It is essentially a new storage system, with different (than HDFS)
architecture, separate S3-like APIs. This is really great - the World sure
needs more distributed file systems. But it is not clear why Ozone should
co-exist with HDFS under the same roof.

2. Ozone is probably just the first step in rebuilding HDFS under a new
architecture. With the next steps presumably being HDFS-10419 and
HDFS-8.
The design doc for the new architecture has never been published. I can
only assume based on some presentations and personal communications that
the idea is to use Ozone as a block storage, and re-implement NameNode, so
that it stores only a partial namesapce in memory, while the bulk of it
(cold data) is persisted to a local storage.
Such architecture makes me wonder if it solves Hadoop's main problems.
There are two main limitations in HDFS:
  a. The throughput of Namespace operations. Which is limited by the number
of RPCs the NameNode can handle
  b. The number of objects (files + blocks) the system can maintain. Which
is limited by the memory size of the NameNode.
The RPC performance (a) is more important for Hadoop scalability than the
object count (b). The read RPCs being the main priority.
The new architecture targets the object count problem, but in the expense
of the RPC throughput. Which seems to be a wrong resolution of the tradeoff.
Also based on the use patterns on our large clusters we read up to 90% of
the data we write, so cold data is a small fraction and most of it must be
cached.

To summarize:
- Ozone is a big enough system to deserve its own project.
- The architecture that Ozone leads to does not seem to solve the intrinsic
problems of current HDFS.

I will post my opinion in the Ozone jira. Should be more convenient to
discuss it there for further 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Konstantin Shvachko]

Hey guys,

It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
There are two main reasons why I think it should not.

1. With close to 500 sub-tasks, with 6 MB of code changes, and with a
sizable community behind, it looks to me like a whole new project.
It is essentially a new storage system, with different (than HDFS)
architecture, separate S3-like APIs. This is really great - the World sure
needs more distributed file systems. But it is not clear why Ozone should
co-exist with HDFS under the same roof.

2. Ozone is probably just the first step in rebuilding HDFS under a new
architecture. With the next steps presumably being HDFS-10419 and
HDFS-8.
The design doc for the new architecture has never been published. I can
only assume based on some presentations and personal communications that
the idea is to use Ozone as a block storage, and re-implement NameNode, so
that it stores only a partial namesapce in memory, while the bulk of it
(cold data) is persisted to a local storage.
Such architecture makes me wonder if it solves Hadoop's main problems.
There are two main limitations in HDFS:
  a. The throughput of Namespace operations. Which is limited by the number
of RPCs the NameNode can handle
  b. The number of objects (files + blocks) the system can maintain. Which
is limited by the memory size of the NameNode.
The RPC performance (a) is more important for Hadoop scalability than the
object count (b). The read RPCs being the main priority.
The new architecture targets the object count problem, but in the expense
of the RPC throughput. Which seems to be a wrong resolution of the tradeoff.
Also based on the use patterns on our large clusters we read up to 90% of
the data we write, so cold data is a small fraction and most of it must be
cached.

To summarize:
- Ozone is a big enough system to deserve its own project.
- The architecture that Ozone leads to does not seem to solve the intrinsic
problems of current HDFS.

I will post my opinion in the Ozone jira. Should be more convenient to
discuss it there for further reference.

Thanks,
--Konstantin



On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
> HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes
> varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>
>
>
> The merge payload includes the following:
>
>   1.  All services, management scripts
>   2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>   3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>   4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>   5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation,
> passes all FileSystem contract tests)
>   6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>   7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>   8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
>   9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
>
>
> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in
> this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
>
>
> We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature
> development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3
> years since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we
> have resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from
> different countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large
> number of community members who were supportive of our efforts and
> contributed ideas and participated in the design of ozone.
>
>
> Please share your thoughts, thanks!
>
>
> -- Weiwei Yang
>


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Yang Weiwei  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to
> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with
> HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes
> varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>
>
>
> The merge payload includes the following:
>
>   1.  All services, management scripts
>   2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>   3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>   4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>   5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation,
> passes all FileSystem contract tests)
>   6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>   7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>   8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
>   9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
>
>
> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in
> this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+
> cluster+with+docker.
>
>
> We have built a passionate and 

Re: 答复: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Jitendra Pandey]

f so, are they accessed via Configuration.getPassword() to allow for
> provisioning in credential providers?
> 4.3. Are there any settings that are used to launch docker containers or
> shell out any commands, etc?
>
> 5. HA
>
> 5.1. Are there provisions for HA?
> 5.2. Are we leveraging the existing HA capabilities in HDFS?
> 5.3. Is Storage Container Manager a SPOF?
> 5.4. I see HA listed in future work in the architecture doc - is this
> still an open issue?
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Anu Engineer <aengin...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> In addition to everything Weiwei mentioned (chapter 3 of user guide), if
>> you really want to drill down to REST protocol you might want to apply 
this
>> patch and build ozone.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12690
>>
>> This will generate an Open API (https://www.openapis.org ,
>> http://swagger.io) based specification which can be accessed from KSM UI
>> or just as a json file.
>> Unfortunately, this patch is still at code review stage, so you will have
>> to apply the patch and build it yourself.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Anu
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/17, 6:09 AM, "Yang Weiwei" <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steve
>>
>>
>> The code is available in HDFS-7240 feature branch, public git repo
>> here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/HDFS-7240>.
>>
>> I am not sure if there is a "public" API for object stores, but the
>> design doc<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/1279954
>> 9/ozone_user_v0.pdf> uses most common syntax so I believe it should be
>> compliance. You can find the rest API doc here<https://github.com/apache
>> /hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/
>> site/markdown/OzoneRest.md> (with some example usages), and commandline
>> API here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-
    >> hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneCommandShell.md>.
>>
>>
>> Look forward for your feedback!
>>
>>
>> --Weiwei
>>
>>
>> 
>> 发件人: Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
>> 发送时间: 2017年10月20日 11:49
>> 收件人: Yang Weiwei
>> 抄送: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org;
>> yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> 主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk
>>
>>
>> Wow, big piece of work
>>
>> 1. Where is a PR/branch on github with rendered docs for us to look
>> at?
>> 2. Have you made any public APi changes related to object stores?
>> That's probably something I'll have opinions on more than implementation
>> details.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> > On 19 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Yang Weiwei <cheersy...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> >
>> > I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone
>> (HDFS-7240) to trunk. This feature implements an object store which can
>> co-exist with HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone 
with
>> cluster sizes varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The merge payload includes the following:
>> >
>> >  1.  All services, management scripts
>> >  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>> >  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>> >  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>> >  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system
>> implementation, passes all FileSystem contract tests)
>> >  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>> >  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>> >  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service
>> UI.
>> >  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development
>> cycles.
>> >
>> >
>> > To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow
>> in

Re: 答复: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[larry mccay]

pache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12690
>>
>> This will generate an Open API (https://www.openapis.org ,
>> http://swagger.io) based specification which can be accessed from KSM UI
>> or just as a json file.
>> Unfortunately, this patch is still at code review stage, so you will have
>> to apply the patch and build it yourself.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Anu
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/17, 6:09 AM, "Yang Weiwei" <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steve
>>
>>
>> The code is available in HDFS-7240 feature branch, public git repo
>> here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/HDFS-7240>.
>>
>> I am not sure if there is a "public" API for object stores, but the
>> design doc<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/1279954
>> 9/ozone_user_v0.pdf> uses most common syntax so I believe it should be
>> compliance. You can find the rest API doc here<https://github.com/apache
>> /hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/
>> site/markdown/OzoneRest.md> (with some example usages), and commandline
>> API here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-
>> hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneCommandShell.md>.
>>
>>
>> Look forward for your feedback!
>>
>>
>> --Weiwei
>>
>>
>> 
>> 发件人: Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
>> 发送时间: 2017年10月20日 11:49
>> 收件人: Yang Weiwei
>> 抄送: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org;
>> yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> 主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk
>>
>>
>> Wow, big piece of work
>>
>> 1. Where is a PR/branch on github with rendered docs for us to look
>> at?
>> 2. Have you made any public APi changes related to object stores?
>> That's probably something I'll have opinions on more than implementation
>> details.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> > On 19 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Yang Weiwei <cheersy...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> >
>> > I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone
>> (HDFS-7240) to trunk. This feature implements an object store which can
>> co-exist with HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with
>> cluster sizes varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The merge payload includes the following:
>> >
>> >  1.  All services, management scripts
>> >  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>> >  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>> >  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>> >  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system
>> implementation, passes all FileSystem contract tests)
>> >  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>> >  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>> >  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service
>> UI.
>> >  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development
>> cycles.
>> >
>> >
>> > To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow
>> instructions in this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
>> uence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
>> Dev cluster with docker - Hadoop - Apache Software Foundation<
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOO
>> P/Dev+cluster+with+docker>
>> cwiki.apache.org
>> First, it uses a much more smaller common image which doesn't
>> contains Hadoop. Second, the real Hadoop should be built from the source
>> and the dist director should be ...
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this
>> feature development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in
>> past 3 years since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far,
>> we have resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from
>> different countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large
>> number of community members who were supportive of our efforts and
>> contributed ideas and participated in the design of ozone.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please share your thoughts, thanks!
>> >
>> >
>> > -- Weiwei Yang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>>
>
>

Re: 答复: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[larry mccay]

can find the rest API doc here<
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/
> hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneRest.md> (with
> some example usages), and commandline API here<https://github.com/
> apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-
> hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneCommandShell.md>.
>
>
> Look forward for your feedback!
>
>
> --Weiwei
>
>
> 
> 发件人: Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
> 发送时间: 2017年10月20日 11:49
> 收件人: Yang Weiwei
> 抄送: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org;
> yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> 主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk
>
>
> Wow, big piece of work
>
> 1. Where is a PR/branch on github with rendered docs for us to look at?
> 2. Have you made any public APi changes related to object stores?
> That's probably something I'll have opinions on more than implementation
> details.
>
> thanks
>
> > On 19 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Yang Weiwei <cheersy...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> >
> > I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone
> (HDFS-7240) to trunk. This feature implements an object store which can
> co-exist with HDFS. Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with
> cluster sizes varying from 1 to 100 data nodes.
> >
> >
> >
> > The merge payload includes the following:
> >
> >  1.  All services, management scripts
> >  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
> >  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
> >  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
> >  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system
> implementation, passes all FileSystem contract tests)
> >  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
> >  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
> >  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
> >  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development
> cycles.
> >
> >
> > To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow
> instructions in this wiki page. https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
> Dev cluster with docker - Hadoop - Apache Software Foundation<
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker
> >
> cwiki.apache.org
> First, it uses a much more smaller common image which doesn't contains
> Hadoop. Second, the real Hadoop should be built from the source and the
> dist director should be ...
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this
> feature development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in
> past 3 years since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far,
> we have resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from
> different countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large
> number of community members who were supportive of our efforts and
> contributed ideas and participated in the design of ozone.
> >
> >
> > Please share your thoughts, thanks!
> >
> >
> > -- Weiwei Yang
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>

Re: 答复: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Anu Engineer]

Hi Steve,

In addition to everything Weiwei mentioned (chapter 3 of user guide), if you 
really want to drill down to REST protocol you might want to apply this patch 
and build ozone.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12690

This will generate an Open API (https://www.openapis.org , http://swagger.io) 
based specification which can be accessed from KSM UI or just as a json file.
Unfortunately, this patch is still at code review stage, so you will have to 
apply the patch and build it yourself. 

Thanks
Anu


On 10/20/17, 6:09 AM, "Yang Weiwei" <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Steve


The code is available in HDFS-7240 feature branch, public git repo 
here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/HDFS-7240>.

I am not sure if there is a "public" API for object stores, but the design 
doc<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12799549/ozone_user_v0.pdf>
 uses most common syntax so I believe it should be compliance. You can find the 
rest API doc 
here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneRest.md>
 (with some example usages), and commandline API 
here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneCommandShell.md>.


Look forward for your feedback!


--Weiwei



发件人: Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
发送时间: 2017年10月20日 11:49
收件人: Yang Weiwei
抄送: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; 
yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
    主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk


Wow, big piece of work

1. Where is a PR/branch on github with rendered docs for us to look at?
2. Have you made any public APi changes related to object stores? That's 
probably something I'll have opinions on more than implementation details.

thanks

> On 19 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Yang Weiwei <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to 
trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with HDFS. 
Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes varying 
from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>
>
>
> The merge payload includes the following:
>
>  1.  All services, management scripts
>  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation, 
passes all FileSystem contract tests)
>  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
>  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
>
>
> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in 
this wiki page. 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
Dev cluster with docker - Hadoop - Apache Software 
Foundation<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker>
cwiki.apache.org
First, it uses a much more smaller common image which doesn't contains 
Hadoop. Second, the real Hadoop should be built from the source and the dist 
director should be ...



>
>
> We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature 
development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3 years 
since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we have resolved 
almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from different countries and 
affiliations. We also want to thank the large number of community members who 
were supportive of our efforts and contributed ideas and participated in the 
design of ozone.
>
>
> Please share your thoughts, thanks!
>
>
> -- Weiwei Yang




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

答复: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Yang Weiwei]

Hi Steve


The code is available in HDFS-7240 feature branch, public git repo 
here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/HDFS-7240>.

I am not sure if there is a "public" API for object stores, but the design 
doc<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12799549/ozone_user_v0.pdf>
 uses most common syntax so I believe it should be compliance. You can find the 
rest API doc 
here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneRest.md>
 (with some example usages), and commandline API 
here<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/HDFS-7240/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/site/markdown/OzoneCommandShell.md>.


Look forward for your feedback!


--Weiwei



发件人: Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
发送时间: 2017年10月20日 11:49
收件人: Yang Weiwei
抄送: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; 
yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk


Wow, big piece of work

1. Where is a PR/branch on github with rendered docs for us to look at?
2. Have you made any public APi changes related to object stores? That's 
probably something I'll have opinions on more than implementation details.

thanks

> On 19 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Yang Weiwei <cheersy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to 
> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with HDFS. 
> Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes varying 
> from 1 to 100 data nodes.
>
>
>
> The merge payload includes the following:
>
>  1.  All services, management scripts
>  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation, passes 
> all FileSystem contract tests)
>  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
>  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
>
>
> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in this 
> wiki page. 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
Dev cluster with docker - Hadoop - Apache Software 
Foundation<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker>
cwiki.apache.org
First, it uses a much more smaller common image which doesn't contains Hadoop. 
Second, the real Hadoop should be built from the source and the dist director 
should be ...



>
>
> We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature 
> development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3 years 
> since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we have 
> resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from different 
> countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large number of 
> community members who were supportive of our efforts and contributed ideas 
> and participated in the design of ozone.
>
>
> Please share your thoughts, thanks!
>
>
> -- Weiwei Yang

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Steve Loughran]

Wow, big piece of work

1. Where is a PR/branch on github with rendered docs for us to look at?
2. Have you made any public APi changes related to object stores? That's 
probably something I'll have opinions on more than implementation details.

thanks

> On 19 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Yang Weiwei  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> 
> I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to 
> trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with HDFS. 
> Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes varying 
> from 1 to 100 data nodes.
> 
> 
> 
> The merge payload includes the following:
> 
>  1.  All services, management scripts
>  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
>  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
>  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
>  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation, passes 
> all FileSystem contract tests)
>  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
>  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
>  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
>  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.
> 
> 
> To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in this 
> wiki page. 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.
> 
> 
> We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature 
> development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3 years 
> since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we have 
> resolved almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from different 
> countries and affiliations. We also want to thank the large number of 
> community members who were supportive of our efforts and contributed ideas 
> and participated in the design of ozone.
> 
> 
> Please share your thoughts, thanks!
> 
> 
> -- Weiwei Yang


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

[DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

[Yang Weiwei]

Hello everyone,


I would like to start this thread to discuss merging Ozone (HDFS-7240) to 
trunk. This feature implements an object store which can co-exist with HDFS. 
Ozone is disabled by default. We have tested Ozone with cluster sizes varying 
from 1 to 100 data nodes.



The merge payload includes the following:

  1.  All services, management scripts
  2.  Object store APIs, exposed via both REST and RPC
  3.  Master service UIs, command line interfaces
  4.  Pluggable pipeline Integration
  5.  Ozone File System (Hadoop compatible file system implementation, passes 
all FileSystem contract tests)
  6.  Corona - a load generator for Ozone.
  7.  Essential documentation added to Hadoop site.
  8.  Version specific Ozone Documentation, accessible via service UI.
  9.  Docker support for ozone, which enables faster development cycles.


To build Ozone and run ozone using docker, please follow instructions in this 
wiki page. 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Dev+cluster+with+docker.


We have built a passionate and diverse community to drive this feature 
development. As a team, we have achieved significant progress in past 3 years 
since first JIRA for HDFS-7240 was opened on Oct 2014. So far, we have resolved 
almost 400 JIRAs by 20+ contributors/committers from different countries and 
affiliations. We also want to thank the large number of community members who 
were supportive of our efforts and contributed ideas and participated in the 
design of ozone.


Please share your thoughts, thanks!


-- Weiwei Yang