+1. Having an open QE process would be a tremendous value-add to the overall quality of the feature. Append was an exemplary development in this sense. Would it be possible to have Federation test plan (if exists) to be published along with the specs on the JIRA (similar to HDFS-265) at least for the reference?
Cos On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 21:56, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I can talk about append as an example. > Some differences with federation project are: > - append had a comprehensive test plan document, which was designed an > executed; > - append was independently evaluated by HBase guys; > - it introduced new benchmark for append; > - We ran both DFSIO and NNThroughput. DFSIO was executed on a relatively > small cluster. I couldn't find where I posted the results, my bad. But you > may be able to find these tasks in our scrum records. > > --Konstantin > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:55 PM, suresh srinivas <srini30...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Konstantin, >> >> Could you provide me link to how this was done on a big feature, like say >> append and how benchmark info was captured? I am planning to run dfsio >> tests, btw. >> >> Regards, >> Suresh >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM, suresh srinivas <srini30...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > Konstantin, >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Konstantin Shvachko < >> > shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Suresh, Sanjay. >> >> >> >> 1. I asked for benchmarks many times over the course of different >> >> discussions on the topic. >> >> I don't see any numbers attached to jira, and I was getting the same >> >> response, >> >> Doug just got from you, guys: which is "why would the performance be >> >> worse". >> >> And this is not an argument for me. >> >> >> > >> > We had done testing earlier and had found that performance had not >> > degraded. We are waiting for out performance team to publish the official >> > numbers to post it to the jira. Unfortunately they are busy qualifying >> 2xx >> > releases currently. I will get the perf numbers and post them. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> 2. I assume that merging requires a vote. I am sure people who know >> bylaws >> >> better than I do will correct me if it is not true. >> >> Did I miss the vote? >> >> >> > >> > >> > As regards to voting, since I was not sure about the procedure, I had >> > consulted Owen about it. He had indicated that voting is not necessary. >> If >> > the right procedure is to call for voting, I will do so. Owen any >> comments? >> > >> > >> >> >> >> It feels like you are rushing this and are not doing what you would >> expect >> >> others to >> >> do in the same position, and what has been done in the past for such >> large >> >> projects. >> >> >> > >> > I am not trying to rush here and not follow the procedure required. I am >> > not sure about what the procedure is. Any pointers to it is appreciated. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Konstantin >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Suresh, Sanjay, >> >> > >> >> > Thank you very much for addressing my questions. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > >> >> > Doug >> >> > >> >> > On 04/26/2011 10:29 AM, suresh srinivas wrote: >> >> > > Doug, >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> 1. Can you please describe the significant advantages this approach >> >> has >> >> > >> over a symlink-based approach? >> >> > > >> >> > > Federation is complementary with symlink approach. You could choose >> to >> >> > > provide integrated namespace using symlinks. However, client side >> >> mount >> >> > > tables seems a better approach for many reasons: >> >> > > # Unlike symbolic links, client side mount tables can choose to go >> to >> >> > right >> >> > > namenode based on configuration. This avoids unnecessary RPCs to the >> >> > > namenodes to discover the targer of symlink. >> >> > > # The unavailability of a namenode where a symbolic link is >> configured >> >> > does >> >> > > not affect reaching the symlink target. >> >> > > # Symbolic links need not be configured on every namenode in the >> >> cluster >> >> > and >> >> > > future changes to symlinks need not be propagated to multiple >> >> namenodes. >> >> > In >> >> > > client side mount tables, this information is in a central >> >> configuration. >> >> > > >> >> > > If a deployment still wants to use symbolic link, federation does >> not >> >> > > preclude it. >> >> > > >> >> > >> It seems to me that one could run multiple namenodes on separate >> >> boxes >> >> > > and run multile datanode processes per storage box >> >> > > >> >> > > There are several advantages to using a single datanode: >> >> > > # When you have large number of namenodes (say 20), the cost of >> >> running >> >> > > separate datanodes in terms of process resources such as memory is >> >> huge. >> >> > > # The disk i/o management and storage utilization using a single >> >> datanode >> >> > is >> >> > > much better, as it has complete view the storage. >> >> > > # In the approach you are proposing, you have several clusters to >> >> manage. >> >> > > However with federation, all datanodes are in a single cluster; with >> >> > single >> >> > > configuration and operationally easier to manage. >> >> > > >> >> > >> The patch modifies much of the logic of Hadoop's central component, >> >> upon >> >> > > which the performance and reliability of most other components of >> the >> >> > > ecosystem depend. >> >> > > That is not true. >> >> > > >> >> > > # Namenode is mostly unchanged in this feature. >> >> > > # Read/write pipelines are unchanged. >> >> > > # The changes are mainly in datanode: >> >> > > #* the storage, FSDataset, Directory and Disk scanners now have >> >> another >> >> > > level to incorporate block pool ID into the hierarchy. This is not a >> >> > > significant change that should cause performance or stability >> >> concerns. >> >> > > #* datanodes use a separate thread per NN, just like the existing >> >> thread >> >> > > that communicates with NN. >> >> > > >> >> > >> Can you please tell me how this has been tested beyond unit tests? >> >> > > As regards to testing, we have passed 600+ tests. In hadoop, these >> >> tests >> >> > > are mostly integration tests and not pure unit tests. >> >> > > >> >> > > While these tests have been extensive, we have also been testing >> this >> >> > branch >> >> > > for last 4 months, with QA validation that reflects our production >> >> > > environment. We have found the system to be stable, performing well >> >> and >> >> > have >> >> > > not found any blockers with the branch so far. >> >> > > >> >> > > HDFS-1052 has been open more than a year now. I had also sent an >> email >> >> > about >> >> > > this merge around 2 months ago. There are 90 subtasks that have been >> >> > worked >> >> > > on last couple of months under HDFS-1052. Given that there was >> enough >> >> > time >> >> > > to ask these questions, your email a day before I am planning to >> merge >> >> > the >> >> > > branch into trunk seems late! >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > Suresh >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Suresh >> >
