Quantcast

Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

Mark Kerzner
Hi,

is it accurate to say that

   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode acts as a cold spare; it can be used to
   recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails, but with the delay of
   minutes if not hours, and there is also some data loss;
   - in 0.21 there are streaming edits to a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539), which
   replaces the Secondary NameNode. The Backup Node can be used as a warm
   spare, with the failover being a matter of seconds. There can be multiple
   Backup Nodes, for additional insurance against failure, and previous best
   common practices apply to it;
   - 0.22 will have further improvements to the HDFS performance, such
   as HDFS-1093.

Does the paper on HDFS Reliability by Tom
White<http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf>still
represent the current state of things?

Thank you. Sincerely,
Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

M. C. Srivas
The summary is quite inaccurate.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> is it accurate to say that
>
>   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode acts as a cold spare; it can be used to
>   recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails, but with the delay of
>   minutes if not hours, and there is also some data loss;
>


The Secondary NN is not a spare. It is used to augment the work of the
Primary, by offloading some of its work to another machine. The work
offloaded is "log rollup" or "checkpointing". This has been a source of
constant confusion (some named it incorrectly as a "secondary" and now we
are stuck with it).

The Secondary NN certainly cannot take over for the Primary. It is not its
purpose.

Yes, there is data loss.




>   - in 0.21 there are streaming edits to a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539), which
>   replaces the Secondary NameNode. The Backup Node can be used as a warm
>   spare, with the failover being a matter of seconds. There can be multiple
>   Backup Nodes, for additional insurance against failure, and previous best
>   common practices apply to it;
>


There is no "Backup NN" in the manner you are thinking of. It is completely
manual, and requires restart of the "whole world", and takes about 2-3 hours
to happen. If you are lucky, you may have only a little data loss (people
have lost entire clusters due to this -- from what I understand, you are far
better off resurrecting the Primary instead of trying to bring up a Backup
NN).

In any case, when you run it like you mention above, you will have to
(a) make sure that the primary is dead
(b) edit hdfs-site.xml on *every* datanode to point to the new IP address of
the backup, and restart each datanode.
(c) wait for 2-3 hours for all the block-reports from every restarted DN to
finish

2-3 hrs afterwards:
(d) after that, restart all TT and the JT to connect to the new NN
(e) finally, restart all the clients (eg, HBase, Oozie, etc)

Many companies, including Yahoo! and Facebook, use a couple of NetApp filers
to hold the actual data that the NN writes. The two NetApp filers are run in
"HA" mode with NVRAM copying.  But the NN remains a single point of failure,
and there is probably some data loss.



>   - 0.22 will have further improvements to the HDFS performance, such
>   as HDFS-1093.
>
> Does the paper on HDFS Reliability by Tom
> White<
> http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf
> >still
> represent the current state of things?
>


See Dhruba's blog-post about the Avatar NN + some custom "stackable HDFS"
code on all the clients + Zookeeper + the dual NetApp filers.

It helps Facebook do manual, controlled, fail-over during software upgrades,
at the cost of some performance loss on the DataNodes (the DataNodes have to
do 2x block reports, and each block-report is expensive, so it limits the
DataNode a bit).  The article does not talk about dataloss when the
fail-over is initiated manually, so I don't know about that.

http://hadoopblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/hadoop-namenode-high-availability.html




>
> Thank you. Sincerely,
> Mark
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

Mark Kerzner
Thank you, M. C. Srivas, that was enormously useful. I understand it now,
but just to be complete, I have re-formulated my points according to your
comments:

   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode performs snapshotting. Its data can be
   used to recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails. The procedure is
   manual and may take hours, and there is also data loss since the last
   snapshot;
   - In 0.21 there is a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539), which aims to help with
   HA and act as a cold spare. The data loss is less than with Secondary NN,
   but it is still manual and potentially error-prone, and it takes hours;
   - There is an AvatarNode patch available for 0.20, and Facebook runs its
   cluster that way, but the patch submitted to Apache requires testing and the
   developers adopting it must do some custom configurations and also exercise
   care in their work.

As a conclusion, when building an HA HDFS cluster, one needs to follow the best
practices outlined by Tom
White<http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf>,
and may still need to resort to specialized NSF filers for running the
NameNode.

Sincerely,
Mark



On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:50 AM, M. C. Srivas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The summary is quite inaccurate.
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > is it accurate to say that
> >
> >   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode acts as a cold spare; it can be used
> to
> >   recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails, but with the delay of
> >   minutes if not hours, and there is also some data loss;
> >
>
>
> The Secondary NN is not a spare. It is used to augment the work of the
> Primary, by offloading some of its work to another machine. The work
> offloaded is "log rollup" or "checkpointing". This has been a source of
> constant confusion (some named it incorrectly as a "secondary" and now we
> are stuck with it).
>
> The Secondary NN certainly cannot take over for the Primary. It is not its
> purpose.
>
> Yes, there is data loss.
>
>
>
>
> >   - in 0.21 there are streaming edits to a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539),
> which
> >   replaces the Secondary NameNode. The Backup Node can be used as a warm
> >   spare, with the failover being a matter of seconds. There can be
> multiple
> >   Backup Nodes, for additional insurance against failure, and previous
> best
> >   common practices apply to it;
> >
>
>
> There is no "Backup NN" in the manner you are thinking of. It is completely
> manual, and requires restart of the "whole world", and takes about 2-3
> hours
> to happen. If you are lucky, you may have only a little data loss (people
> have lost entire clusters due to this -- from what I understand, you are
> far
> better off resurrecting the Primary instead of trying to bring up a Backup
> NN).
>
> In any case, when you run it like you mention above, you will have to
> (a) make sure that the primary is dead
> (b) edit hdfs-site.xml on *every* datanode to point to the new IP address
> of
> the backup, and restart each datanode.
> (c) wait for 2-3 hours for all the block-reports from every restarted DN to
> finish
>
> 2-3 hrs afterwards:
> (d) after that, restart all TT and the JT to connect to the new NN
> (e) finally, restart all the clients (eg, HBase, Oozie, etc)
>
> Many companies, including Yahoo! and Facebook, use a couple of NetApp
> filers
> to hold the actual data that the NN writes. The two NetApp filers are run
> in
> "HA" mode with NVRAM copying.  But the NN remains a single point of
> failure,
> and there is probably some data loss.
>
>
>
> >   - 0.22 will have further improvements to the HDFS performance, such
> >   as HDFS-1093.
> >
> > Does the paper on HDFS Reliability by Tom
> > White<
> > http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf
> > >still
> > represent the current state of things?
> >
>
>
> See Dhruba's blog-post about the Avatar NN + some custom "stackable HDFS"
> code on all the clients + Zookeeper + the dual NetApp filers.
>
> It helps Facebook do manual, controlled, fail-over during software
> upgrades,
> at the cost of some performance loss on the DataNodes (the DataNodes have
> to
> do 2x block reports, and each block-report is expensive, so it limits the
> DataNode a bit).  The article does not talk about dataloss when the
> fail-over is initiated manually, so I don't know about that.
>
>
> http://hadoopblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/hadoop-namenode-high-availability.html
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Thank you. Sincerely,
> > Mark
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

Ted Dunning-5
Note that document purports to be from 2008 and, at best, was uploaded just
about a year ago.

That it is still pretty accurate is kind of a tribute to either the
stability of hbase or the stagnation depending on how you read it.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]>wrote:

> As a conclusion, when building an HA HDFS cluster, one needs to follow the
> best
> practices outlined by Tom
> White<
> http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf>,
> and may still need to resort to specialized NSF filers for running the
> NameNode.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

M. C. Srivas
In reply to this post by Mark Kerzner
I understand you are writing a book "Hadoop in Practice".  If so, its
important that what's recommended in the book should be verified in
practice. (I mean, beyond simply posting in this newsgroup - for instance,
the recommendations on NN fail-over should be tried out first before writing
about how to do it). Otherwise you won't know your recommendations really
work or not.



On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Thank you, M. C. Srivas, that was enormously useful. I understand it now,
> but just to be complete, I have re-formulated my points according to your
> comments:
>
>   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode performs snapshotting. Its data can be
>   used to recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails. The procedure is
>   manual and may take hours, and there is also data loss since the last
>   snapshot;
>   - In 0.21 there is a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539), which aims to help with
>   HA and act as a cold spare. The data loss is less than with Secondary NN,
>   but it is still manual and potentially error-prone, and it takes hours;
>   - There is an AvatarNode patch available for 0.20, and Facebook runs its
>   cluster that way, but the patch submitted to Apache requires testing and
> the
>   developers adopting it must do some custom configurations and also
> exercise
>   care in their work.
>
> As a conclusion, when building an HA HDFS cluster, one needs to follow the
> best
> practices outlined by Tom
> White<
> http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf>,
> and may still need to resort to specialized NSF filers for running the
> NameNode.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:50 AM, M. C. Srivas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The summary is quite inaccurate.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > is it accurate to say that
> > >
> > >   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode acts as a cold spare; it can be used
> > to
> > >   recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails, but with the delay
> of
> > >   minutes if not hours, and there is also some data loss;
> > >
> >
> >
> > The Secondary NN is not a spare. It is used to augment the work of the
> > Primary, by offloading some of its work to another machine. The work
> > offloaded is "log rollup" or "checkpointing". This has been a source of
> > constant confusion (some named it incorrectly as a "secondary" and now we
> > are stuck with it).
> >
> > The Secondary NN certainly cannot take over for the Primary. It is not
> its
> > purpose.
> >
> > Yes, there is data loss.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >   - in 0.21 there are streaming edits to a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539),
> > which
> > >   replaces the Secondary NameNode. The Backup Node can be used as a
> warm
> > >   spare, with the failover being a matter of seconds. There can be
> > multiple
> > >   Backup Nodes, for additional insurance against failure, and previous
> > best
> > >   common practices apply to it;
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is no "Backup NN" in the manner you are thinking of. It is
> completely
> > manual, and requires restart of the "whole world", and takes about 2-3
> > hours
> > to happen. If you are lucky, you may have only a little data loss (people
> > have lost entire clusters due to this -- from what I understand, you are
> > far
> > better off resurrecting the Primary instead of trying to bring up a
> Backup
> > NN).
> >
> > In any case, when you run it like you mention above, you will have to
> > (a) make sure that the primary is dead
> > (b) edit hdfs-site.xml on *every* datanode to point to the new IP address
> > of
> > the backup, and restart each datanode.
> > (c) wait for 2-3 hours for all the block-reports from every restarted DN
> to
> > finish
> >
> > 2-3 hrs afterwards:
> > (d) after that, restart all TT and the JT to connect to the new NN
> > (e) finally, restart all the clients (eg, HBase, Oozie, etc)
> >
> > Many companies, including Yahoo! and Facebook, use a couple of NetApp
> > filers
> > to hold the actual data that the NN writes. The two NetApp filers are run
> > in
> > "HA" mode with NVRAM copying.  But the NN remains a single point of
> > failure,
> > and there is probably some data loss.
> >
> >
> >
> > >   - 0.22 will have further improvements to the HDFS performance, such
> > >   as HDFS-1093.
> > >
> > > Does the paper on HDFS Reliability by Tom
> > > White<
> > >
> http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf
> > > >still
> > > represent the current state of things?
> > >
> >
> >
> > See Dhruba's blog-post about the Avatar NN + some custom "stackable HDFS"
> > code on all the clients + Zookeeper + the dual NetApp filers.
> >
> > It helps Facebook do manual, controlled, fail-over during software
> > upgrades,
> > at the cost of some performance loss on the DataNodes (the DataNodes have
> > to
> > do 2x block reports, and each block-report is expensive, so it limits the
> > DataNode a bit).  The article does not talk about dataloss when the
> > fail-over is initiated manually, so I don't know about that.
> >
> >
> >
> http://hadoopblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/hadoop-namenode-high-availability.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you. Sincerely,
> > > Mark
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

Mark Kerzner
I completely agree, and I am using yours and the group's posting to define
the direction and approaches, but I am also trying every solution - and I am
beginning to do just that, the AvatarNode now.

Thank you,
Mark

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM, M. C. Srivas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I understand you are writing a book "Hadoop in Practice".  If so, its
> important that what's recommended in the book should be verified in
> practice. (I mean, beyond simply posting in this newsgroup - for instance,
> the recommendations on NN fail-over should be tried out first before
> writing
> about how to do it). Otherwise you won't know your recommendations really
> work or not.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Thank you, M. C. Srivas, that was enormously useful. I understand it now,
> > but just to be complete, I have re-formulated my points according to your
> > comments:
> >
> >   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode performs snapshotting. Its data can be
> >   used to recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails. The procedure
> is
> >   manual and may take hours, and there is also data loss since the last
> >   snapshot;
> >   - In 0.21 there is a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539), which aims to help with
> >   HA and act as a cold spare. The data loss is less than with Secondary
> NN,
> >   but it is still manual and potentially error-prone, and it takes hours;
> >   - There is an AvatarNode patch available for 0.20, and Facebook runs
> its
> >   cluster that way, but the patch submitted to Apache requires testing
> and
> > the
> >   developers adopting it must do some custom configurations and also
> > exercise
> >   care in their work.
> >
> > As a conclusion, when building an HA HDFS cluster, one needs to follow
> the
> > best
> > practices outlined by Tom
> > White<
> > http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf
> >,
> > and may still need to resort to specialized NSF filers for running the
> > NameNode.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:50 AM, M. C. Srivas <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The summary is quite inaccurate.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > is it accurate to say that
> > > >
> > > >   - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode acts as a cold spare; it can be
> used
> > > to
> > > >   recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails, but with the delay
> > of
> > > >   minutes if not hours, and there is also some data loss;
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Secondary NN is not a spare. It is used to augment the work of the
> > > Primary, by offloading some of its work to another machine. The work
> > > offloaded is "log rollup" or "checkpointing". This has been a source of
> > > constant confusion (some named it incorrectly as a "secondary" and now
> we
> > > are stuck with it).
> > >
> > > The Secondary NN certainly cannot take over for the Primary. It is not
> > its
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is data loss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >   - in 0.21 there are streaming edits to a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539),
> > > which
> > > >   replaces the Secondary NameNode. The Backup Node can be used as a
> > warm
> > > >   spare, with the failover being a matter of seconds. There can be
> > > multiple
> > > >   Backup Nodes, for additional insurance against failure, and
> previous
> > > best
> > > >   common practices apply to it;
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no "Backup NN" in the manner you are thinking of. It is
> > completely
> > > manual, and requires restart of the "whole world", and takes about 2-3
> > > hours
> > > to happen. If you are lucky, you may have only a little data loss
> (people
> > > have lost entire clusters due to this -- from what I understand, you
> are
> > > far
> > > better off resurrecting the Primary instead of trying to bring up a
> > Backup
> > > NN).
> > >
> > > In any case, when you run it like you mention above, you will have to
> > > (a) make sure that the primary is dead
> > > (b) edit hdfs-site.xml on *every* datanode to point to the new IP
> address
> > > of
> > > the backup, and restart each datanode.
> > > (c) wait for 2-3 hours for all the block-reports from every restarted
> DN
> > to
> > > finish
> > >
> > > 2-3 hrs afterwards:
> > > (d) after that, restart all TT and the JT to connect to the new NN
> > > (e) finally, restart all the clients (eg, HBase, Oozie, etc)
> > >
> > > Many companies, including Yahoo! and Facebook, use a couple of NetApp
> > > filers
> > > to hold the actual data that the NN writes. The two NetApp filers are
> run
> > > in
> > > "HA" mode with NVRAM copying.  But the NN remains a single point of
> > > failure,
> > > and there is probably some data loss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >   - 0.22 will have further improvements to the HDFS performance, such
> > > >   as HDFS-1093.
> > > >
> > > > Does the paper on HDFS Reliability by Tom
> > > > White<
> > > >
> > http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf
> > > > >still
> > > > represent the current state of things?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > See Dhruba's blog-post about the Avatar NN + some custom "stackable
> HDFS"
> > > code on all the clients + Zookeeper + the dual NetApp filers.
> > >
> > > It helps Facebook do manual, controlled, fail-over during software
> > > upgrades,
> > > at the cost of some performance loss on the DataNodes (the DataNodes
> have
> > > to
> > > do 2x block reports, and each block-report is expensive, so it limits
> the
> > > DataNode a bit).  The article does not talk about dataloss when the
> > > fail-over is initiated manually, so I don't know about that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://hadoopblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/hadoop-namenode-high-availability.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. Sincerely,
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is this a fair summary of HDFS failover?

Allen Wittenauer

        I'm more than a little concerned that you missed the whole multiple directories--including a remote one--for the fsimage thing.  That's probably the #1 thing that most of the big grids do to maintain the NN data.  I can only remember one failure where the NFS copy wasn't used to recover a namenode in all the failures I've personally been involved (and that was an especially odd bug, not a NN failure, per se).  The only reason to fall back to the 2ndary NN in 0.20 should be is if you've hit a similarly spectacular bug.  Point blank: anyone who runs the NN without it writing to a remote copy doesn't know what they are doing.

        Also, until AvatarNode comes of age (which, from what I understand, FB has only been doing for very long themselves), there is no such thing as HA NN.  We all have high hopes that it works out, but it likely isn't anywhere near ready for primetime yet.

On Feb 14, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Mark Kerzner wrote:

> I completely agree, and I am using yours and the group's posting to define
> the direction and approaches, but I am also trying every solution - and I am
> beginning to do just that, the AvatarNode now.
>
> Thank you,
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM, M. C. Srivas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I understand you are writing a book "Hadoop in Practice".  If so, its
>> important that what's recommended in the book should be verified in
>> practice. (I mean, beyond simply posting in this newsgroup - for instance,
>> the recommendations on NN fail-over should be tried out first before
>> writing
>> about how to do it). Otherwise you won't know your recommendations really
>> work or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, M. C. Srivas, that was enormously useful. I understand it now,
>>> but just to be complete, I have re-formulated my points according to your
>>> comments:
>>>
>>>  - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode performs snapshotting. Its data can be
>>>  used to recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails. The procedure
>> is
>>>  manual and may take hours, and there is also data loss since the last
>>>  snapshot;
>>>  - In 0.21 there is a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539), which aims to help with
>>>  HA and act as a cold spare. The data loss is less than with Secondary
>> NN,
>>>  but it is still manual and potentially error-prone, and it takes hours;
>>>  - There is an AvatarNode patch available for 0.20, and Facebook runs
>> its
>>>  cluster that way, but the patch submitted to Apache requires testing
>> and
>>> the
>>>  developers adopting it must do some custom configurations and also
>>> exercise
>>>  care in their work.
>>>
>>> As a conclusion, when building an HA HDFS cluster, one needs to follow
>> the
>>> best
>>> practices outlined by Tom
>>> White<
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf
>>> ,
>>> and may still need to resort to specialized NSF filers for running the
>>> NameNode.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:50 AM, M. C. Srivas <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The summary is quite inaccurate.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Mark Kerzner <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> is it accurate to say that
>>>>>
>>>>>  - In 0.20 the Secondary NameNode acts as a cold spare; it can be
>> used
>>>> to
>>>>>  recreate the HDFS if the Primary NameNode fails, but with the delay
>>> of
>>>>>  minutes if not hours, and there is also some data loss;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Secondary NN is not a spare. It is used to augment the work of the
>>>> Primary, by offloading some of its work to another machine. The work
>>>> offloaded is "log rollup" or "checkpointing". This has been a source of
>>>> constant confusion (some named it incorrectly as a "secondary" and now
>> we
>>>> are stuck with it).
>>>>
>>>> The Secondary NN certainly cannot take over for the Primary. It is not
>>> its
>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is data loss.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  - in 0.21 there are streaming edits to a Backup Node (HADOOP-4539),
>>>> which
>>>>>  replaces the Secondary NameNode. The Backup Node can be used as a
>>> warm
>>>>>  spare, with the failover being a matter of seconds. There can be
>>>> multiple
>>>>>  Backup Nodes, for additional insurance against failure, and
>> previous
>>>> best
>>>>>  common practices apply to it;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no "Backup NN" in the manner you are thinking of. It is
>>> completely
>>>> manual, and requires restart of the "whole world", and takes about 2-3
>>>> hours
>>>> to happen. If you are lucky, you may have only a little data loss
>> (people
>>>> have lost entire clusters due to this -- from what I understand, you
>> are
>>>> far
>>>> better off resurrecting the Primary instead of trying to bring up a
>>> Backup
>>>> NN).
>>>>
>>>> In any case, when you run it like you mention above, you will have to
>>>> (a) make sure that the primary is dead
>>>> (b) edit hdfs-site.xml on *every* datanode to point to the new IP
>> address
>>>> of
>>>> the backup, and restart each datanode.
>>>> (c) wait for 2-3 hours for all the block-reports from every restarted
>> DN
>>> to
>>>> finish
>>>>
>>>> 2-3 hrs afterwards:
>>>> (d) after that, restart all TT and the JT to connect to the new NN
>>>> (e) finally, restart all the clients (eg, HBase, Oozie, etc)
>>>>
>>>> Many companies, including Yahoo! and Facebook, use a couple of NetApp
>>>> filers
>>>> to hold the actual data that the NN writes. The two NetApp filers are
>> run
>>>> in
>>>> "HA" mode with NVRAM copying.  But the NN remains a single point of
>>>> failure,
>>>> and there is probably some data loss.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  - 0.22 will have further improvements to the HDFS performance, such
>>>>>  as HDFS-1093.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the paper on HDFS Reliability by Tom
>>>>> White<
>>>>>
>>> http://www.cloudera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HDFS_Reliability.pdf
>>>>>> still
>>>>> represent the current state of things?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See Dhruba's blog-post about the Avatar NN + some custom "stackable
>> HDFS"
>>>> code on all the clients + Zookeeper + the dual NetApp filers.
>>>>
>>>> It helps Facebook do manual, controlled, fail-over during software
>>>> upgrades,
>>>> at the cost of some performance loss on the DataNodes (the DataNodes
>> have
>>>> to
>>>> do 2x block reports, and each block-report is expensive, so it limits
>> the
>>>> DataNode a bit).  The article does not talk about dataloss when the
>>>> fail-over is initiated manually, so I don't know about that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://hadoopblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/hadoop-namenode-high-availability.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. Sincerely,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Loading...