On 09/10/11 07:01, M. C. Srivas wrote:
If you insist on HDFS, try using XFS underneath, it does a much better job
than ext3 or ext4 for Hadoop in terms of how data is layed out on disk. But
its memory footprint is alteast twice of that of ext3, so it will gobble up
a lot more memory on your
XFS was created in 1991 by Silicon Graphics. It was designed for streaming.
The Linux port was in 2002 or so.
I've used it extensively for the past 8 years. It is very stable, and many
NAS companies have embedded it in their products. In particular, it works
well even when the disk starts
I can provide another data point here: xfs works very well in modern Linuxes
(in the 2.6.9 era, it had many memory management headaches, especially around
the switch to 4k stacks), and its advantage is significant when you run file
systems over 95% occupied.
Brian
On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:51 AM,
Have you tried it to see what diffrence it makes?
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Niels Basjes
(Verstuurd vanaf mobiel )
Op 3 okt. 2011 07:06 schreef Jinsong Hu jinsong...@hotmail.com het
volgende:
Hi, There:
I just thought an idea. When we format the disk , the block size is
usually 1K to 4K. For
Hi, There:
I just thought an idea. When we format the disk , the block size is
usually 1K to 4K. For hdfs, the block size is usually 64M.
I wonder if we change the raw file system's block size to something
significantly bigger, say, 1M or 8M, will that improve
disk IO performance for hadoop's
