You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to common-dev@hadoop.apache.org by Kumar Ravi <go...@gmail.com> on 2012/03/22 13:24:20 UTC
Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Hello,
We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this JIRA.
I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
expected return value is 2.
So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of splits is
because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get created
is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict dependency
in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to determine
the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster? Is
this Working as designed?
Regards,
Kumar
Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Posted by Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>.
Amir, let's continue the discussion on jira (now that we have got into disagreements :-) ).
Thanks,
Devaraj.
On Mar 23, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Amir Sanjar wrote:
> Devaraj ,
> I respectfully disagree, fixing the testcase for IBM JVM will break SUN
> JVM, unless we remove the assertion causing the problem. However that might
> in return mask other problems . Before any changes we need to understand
> the logic behind split process. Is there any documentation? Who owned the
> code?
>
>
> Best Regards
> Amir Sanjar
>
> Linux System Management Architect and Lead
> IBM Senior Software Engineer
> Phone# 512-286-8393
> Fax# 512-838-8858
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: Jeffrey J Heroux/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, John
> Williams/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Date: 03/23/2012 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
>
>
>
> Thanks for the explanation, Kumar.
>
> This looks like a testcase problem. We can get into a discussion on whether
> we should tweak the split selection process to output more/less splits when
> given an input set, but for now we should fix the testcase. Makes sense?
>
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Kumar Ravi wrote:
>
>> Hi Devaraj,
>>
>> The issue Amir brings up has to do with the Testcase scenario.
>>
>> We are trying to determine if this is a Design issue with the
> getMoreSplits() method in CombineFileInputFormat class or if the testcase
> needs modification.
>> Like I mentioned in my earlier note, the observation we made while
> debugging this issue is that the order by which the racksToBlocks HashMap
> gets populated seems to matter. From the comments by Robert Evans and you,
> it appears by design that the order should not matter.
>>
>> Amir's point is - The reason order happens to play a role here is that as
> soon as all the blocks are accounted for, getMoreSplits() stops iterating
> through the racks, and depending upon which rack(s) each block is
> replicated on, and depending upon when each rack is processed in the loop
> within getMoreSplits(), one can end up with different split counts, and as
> a result fail the testcase in some situations.
>>
>> Specifically for this testcase, there are 3 racks that are simulated
> where each of these 3 racks have a datanode each. Datanode 1 has replicas
> of all the blocks of all the 3 files (file1, file2, and file3) while
> Datanode 2 has all the blocks of files file2 and file 3 and Datanode 3 has
> all the blocks of only file3. As soon as Rack 1 is processed, getMoreSplits
> () exits with a split count of the number of times it stays in this loop.
> So in this scenario, if Rack1 gets processed last, one will end up with a
> split count of 3. If Rack1 gets processed in the beginning, split count
> will be 1. The testcase is expecting a return value of 3 but can get a 1 or
> 2 depending on when it gets processed.
>>
>> Hope this clarifies things a bit.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kumar
>>
>>
>> Kumar Ravi
>> IBM Linux Technology Center
>> Austin, TX
>>
>> Tel.: (512)286-8179
>>
>> Devaraj Das ---03/22/2012 04:41:36 PM---On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM,
> Amir Sanjar wrote:
>>
>>
>> From:
>>
>> Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>>
>> To:
>>
>> common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Jeffrey J Heroux/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, John Williams/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>>
>> Date:
>>
>> 03/22/2012 04:41 PM
>>
>> Subject:
>>
>> Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Amir Sanjar wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the reply Robert,
>>> However I believe the main design issue is:
>>> If there is a rack ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) that contains all
> the
>>> blocks (stored in blockToNode hashMap), regardless of the order, the
> split
>>> operation terminates after the rack gets processed, That means
> remaining
>>> racks ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) will not get processed . For
> more
>>> details look at file CombineFileInputFormat.JAVA, method getMoreSplits
> (),
>>> while loop starting at line 344.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't looked at the code much yet. But trying to understand your
> question - what issue are you trying to bring out? Is it overloading one
> task with too much input (there is a min/max limit on that one though)?
>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Amir Sanjar
>>>
>>> Linux System Management Architect and Lead
>>> IBM Senior Software Engineer
>>> Phone# 512-286-8393
>>> Fax# 512-838-8858
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
>>> To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org"
> <co...@hadoop.apache.org>
>>> Date: 03/22/2012 11:57 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks
> ordering
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If it really is the ordering of the hash map I would say no it should
> not,
>>> and the code should be updated. If ordering matters we need to use a
> map
>>> that guarantees a given order, and hash map is not one of them.
>>>
>>> --Bobby Evans
>>>
>>> On 3/22/12 7:24 AM, "Kumar Ravi" <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
>>> independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this
> JIRA.
>>> I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
>>>
>>> We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
>>> org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
>>> The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
>>> CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
>>> expected return value is 2.
>>>
>>> So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of
> splits is
>>> because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get
> created
>>> is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
>>>
>>> The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict
> dependency
>>> in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to
> determine
>>> the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster?
> Is
>>> this Working as designed?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kumar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Posted by Amir Sanjar <v1...@us.ibm.com>.
Devaraj ,
I respectfully disagree, fixing the testcase for IBM JVM will break SUN
JVM, unless we remove the assertion causing the problem. However that might
in return mask other problems . Before any changes we need to understand
the logic behind split process. Is there any documentation? Who owned the
code?
Best Regards
Amir Sanjar
Linux System Management Architect and Lead
IBM Senior Software Engineer
Phone# 512-286-8393
Fax# 512-838-8858
From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: Jeffrey J Heroux/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, John
Williams/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 03/23/2012 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Thanks for the explanation, Kumar.
This looks like a testcase problem. We can get into a discussion on whether
we should tweak the split selection process to output more/less splits when
given an input set, but for now we should fix the testcase. Makes sense?
On Mar 23, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Kumar Ravi wrote:
> Hi Devaraj,
>
> The issue Amir brings up has to do with the Testcase scenario.
>
> We are trying to determine if this is a Design issue with the
getMoreSplits() method in CombineFileInputFormat class or if the testcase
needs modification.
> Like I mentioned in my earlier note, the observation we made while
debugging this issue is that the order by which the racksToBlocks HashMap
gets populated seems to matter. From the comments by Robert Evans and you,
it appears by design that the order should not matter.
>
> Amir's point is - The reason order happens to play a role here is that as
soon as all the blocks are accounted for, getMoreSplits() stops iterating
through the racks, and depending upon which rack(s) each block is
replicated on, and depending upon when each rack is processed in the loop
within getMoreSplits(), one can end up with different split counts, and as
a result fail the testcase in some situations.
>
> Specifically for this testcase, there are 3 racks that are simulated
where each of these 3 racks have a datanode each. Datanode 1 has replicas
of all the blocks of all the 3 files (file1, file2, and file3) while
Datanode 2 has all the blocks of files file2 and file 3 and Datanode 3 has
all the blocks of only file3. As soon as Rack 1 is processed, getMoreSplits
() exits with a split count of the number of times it stays in this loop.
So in this scenario, if Rack1 gets processed last, one will end up with a
split count of 3. If Rack1 gets processed in the beginning, split count
will be 1. The testcase is expecting a return value of 3 but can get a 1 or
2 depending on when it gets processed.
>
> Hope this clarifies things a bit.
>
> Regards,
> Kumar
>
>
> Kumar Ravi
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> Austin, TX
>
> Tel.: (512)286-8179
>
> Devaraj Das ---03/22/2012 04:41:36 PM---On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM,
Amir Sanjar wrote:
>
>
> From:
>
> Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>
> To:
>
> common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>
> Cc:
>
> Jeffrey J Heroux/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, John Williams/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>
> Date:
>
> 03/22/2012 04:41 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Amir Sanjar wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply Robert,
> > However I believe the main design issue is:
> > If there is a rack ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) that contains all
the
> > blocks (stored in blockToNode hashMap), regardless of the order, the
split
> > operation terminates after the rack gets processed, That means
remaining
> > racks ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) will not get processed . For
more
> > details look at file CombineFileInputFormat.JAVA, method getMoreSplits
(),
> > while loop starting at line 344.
> >
>
> I haven't looked at the code much yet. But trying to understand your
question - what issue are you trying to bring out? Is it overloading one
task with too much input (there is a min/max limit on that one though)?
>
> > Best Regards
> > Amir Sanjar
> >
> > Linux System Management Architect and Lead
> > IBM Senior Software Engineer
> > Phone# 512-286-8393
> > Fax# 512-838-8858
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
> > To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org"
<co...@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Date: 03/22/2012 11:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks
ordering
> >
> >
> >
> > If it really is the ordering of the hash map I would say no it should
not,
> > and the code should be updated. If ordering matters we need to use a
map
> > that guarantees a given order, and hash map is not one of them.
> >
> > --Bobby Evans
> >
> > On 3/22/12 7:24 AM, "Kumar Ravi" <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
> > independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this
JIRA.
> > I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
> >
> > We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
> > org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
> > The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
> > CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
> > expected return value is 2.
> >
> > So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of
splits is
> > because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get
created
> > is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
> >
> > The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict
dependency
> > in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to
determine
> > the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster?
Is
> > this Working as designed?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kumar
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Posted by Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>.
Thanks for the explanation, Kumar.
This looks like a testcase problem. We can get into a discussion on whether we should tweak the split selection process to output more/less splits when given an input set, but for now we should fix the testcase. Makes sense?
On Mar 23, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Kumar Ravi wrote:
> Hi Devaraj,
>
> The issue Amir brings up has to do with the Testcase scenario.
>
> We are trying to determine if this is a Design issue with the getMoreSplits() method in CombineFileInputFormat class or if the testcase needs modification.
> Like I mentioned in my earlier note, the observation we made while debugging this issue is that the order by which the racksToBlocks HashMap gets populated seems to matter. From the comments by Robert Evans and you, it appears by design that the order should not matter.
>
> Amir's point is - The reason order happens to play a role here is that as soon as all the blocks are accounted for, getMoreSplits() stops iterating through the racks, and depending upon which rack(s) each block is replicated on, and depending upon when each rack is processed in the loop within getMoreSplits(), one can end up with different split counts, and as a result fail the testcase in some situations.
>
> Specifically for this testcase, there are 3 racks that are simulated where each of these 3 racks have a datanode each. Datanode 1 has replicas of all the blocks of all the 3 files (file1, file2, and file3) while Datanode 2 has all the blocks of files file2 and file 3 and Datanode 3 has all the blocks of only file3. As soon as Rack 1 is processed, getMoreSplits() exits with a split count of the number of times it stays in this loop. So in this scenario, if Rack1 gets processed last, one will end up with a split count of 3. If Rack1 gets processed in the beginning, split count will be 1. The testcase is expecting a return value of 3 but can get a 1 or 2 depending on when it gets processed.
>
> Hope this clarifies things a bit.
>
> Regards,
> Kumar
>
>
> Kumar Ravi
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> Austin, TX
>
> Tel.: (512)286-8179
>
> Devaraj Das ---03/22/2012 04:41:36 PM---On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Amir Sanjar wrote:
>
>
> From:
>
> Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
>
> To:
>
> common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>
> Cc:
>
> Jeffrey J Heroux/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, John Williams/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>
> Date:
>
> 03/22/2012 04:41 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Amir Sanjar wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply Robert,
> > However I believe the main design issue is:
> > If there is a rack ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) that contains all the
> > blocks (stored in blockToNode hashMap), regardless of the order, the split
> > operation terminates after the rack gets processed, That means remaining
> > racks ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) will not get processed . For more
> > details look at file CombineFileInputFormat.JAVA, method getMoreSplits(),
> > while loop starting at line 344.
> >
>
> I haven't looked at the code much yet. But trying to understand your question - what issue are you trying to bring out? Is it overloading one task with too much input (there is a min/max limit on that one though)?
>
> > Best Regards
> > Amir Sanjar
> >
> > Linux System Management Architect and Lead
> > IBM Senior Software Engineer
> > Phone# 512-286-8393
> > Fax# 512-838-8858
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
> > To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <co...@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Date: 03/22/2012 11:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
> >
> >
> >
> > If it really is the ordering of the hash map I would say no it should not,
> > and the code should be updated. If ordering matters we need to use a map
> > that guarantees a given order, and hash map is not one of them.
> >
> > --Bobby Evans
> >
> > On 3/22/12 7:24 AM, "Kumar Ravi" <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
> > independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this JIRA.
> > I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
> >
> > We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
> > org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
> > The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
> > CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
> > expected return value is 2.
> >
> > So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of splits is
> > because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get created
> > is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
> >
> > The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict dependency
> > in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to determine
> > the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster? Is
> > this Working as designed?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kumar
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Posted by Kumar Ravi <ku...@us.ibm.com>.
Hi Devaraj,
The issue Amir brings up has to do with the Testcase scenario.
We are trying to determine if this is a Design issue with the getMoreSplits
() method in CombineFileInputFormat class or if the testcase needs
modification.
Like I mentioned in my earlier note, the observation we made while
debugging this issue is that the order by which the racksToBlocks HashMap
gets populated seems to matter. From the comments by Robert Evans and you,
it appears by design that the order should not matter.
Amir's point is - The reason order happens to play a role here is that as
soon as all the blocks are accounted for, getMoreSplits() stops iterating
through the racks, and depending upon which rack(s) each block is
replicated on, and depending upon when each rack is processed in the loop
within getMoreSplits(), one can end up with different split counts, and as
a result fail the testcase in some situations.
Specifically for this testcase, there are 3 racks that are simulated where
each of these 3 racks have a datanode each. Datanode 1 has replicas of all
the blocks of all the 3 files (file1, file2, and file3) while Datanode 2
has all the blocks of files file2 and file 3 and Datanode 3 has all the
blocks of only file3. As soon as Rack 1 is processed, getMoreSplits() exits
with a split count of the number of times it stays in this loop. So in this
scenario, if Rack1 gets processed last, one will end up with a split count
of 3. If Rack1 gets processed in the beginning, split count will be 1. The
testcase is expecting a return value of 3 but can get a 1 or 2 depending on
when it gets processed.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Regards,
Kumar
Kumar Ravi
IBM Linux Technology Center
Austin, TX
Tel.: (512)286-8179
From: Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: Jeffrey J Heroux/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, John Williams/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 03/22/2012 04:41 PM
Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Amir Sanjar wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Robert,
> However I believe the main design issue is:
> If there is a rack ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) that contains all the
> blocks (stored in blockToNode hashMap), regardless of the order, the
split
> operation terminates after the rack gets processed, That means remaining
> racks ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) will not get processed . For
more
> details look at file CombineFileInputFormat.JAVA, method getMoreSplits(),
> while loop starting at line 344.
>
I haven't looked at the code much yet. But trying to understand your
question - what issue are you trying to bring out? Is it overloading one
task with too much input (there is a min/max limit on that one though)?
> Best Regards
> Amir Sanjar
>
> Linux System Management Architect and Lead
> IBM Senior Software Engineer
> Phone# 512-286-8393
> Fax# 512-838-8858
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <co...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Date: 03/22/2012 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
>
>
>
> If it really is the ordering of the hash map I would say no it should
not,
> and the code should be updated. If ordering matters we need to use a map
> that guarantees a given order, and hash map is not one of them.
>
> --Bobby Evans
>
> On 3/22/12 7:24 AM, "Kumar Ravi" <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
> independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this
JIRA.
> I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
>
> We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
> org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
> The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
> CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
> expected return value is 2.
>
> So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of splits
is
> because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get
created
> is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
>
> The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict
dependency
> in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to
determine
> the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster? Is
> this Working as designed?
>
> Regards,
> Kumar
>
>
>
Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Posted by Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>.
On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Amir Sanjar wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Robert,
> However I believe the main design issue is:
> If there is a rack ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) that contains all the
> blocks (stored in blockToNode hashMap), regardless of the order, the split
> operation terminates after the rack gets processed, That means remaining
> racks ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) will not get processed . For more
> details look at file CombineFileInputFormat.JAVA, method getMoreSplits(),
> while loop starting at line 344.
>
I haven't looked at the code much yet. But trying to understand your question - what issue are you trying to bring out? Is it overloading one task with too much input (there is a min/max limit on that one though)?
> Best Regards
> Amir Sanjar
>
> Linux System Management Architect and Lead
> IBM Senior Software Engineer
> Phone# 512-286-8393
> Fax# 512-838-8858
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <co...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Date: 03/22/2012 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
>
>
>
> If it really is the ordering of the hash map I would say no it should not,
> and the code should be updated. If ordering matters we need to use a map
> that guarantees a given order, and hash map is not one of them.
>
> --Bobby Evans
>
> On 3/22/12 7:24 AM, "Kumar Ravi" <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
> independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this JIRA.
> I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
>
> We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
> org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
> The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
> CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
> expected return value is 2.
>
> So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of splits is
> because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get created
> is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
>
> The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict dependency
> in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to determine
> the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster? Is
> this Working as designed?
>
> Regards,
> Kumar
>
>
>
Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Posted by Amir Sanjar <v1...@us.ibm.com>.
Thanks for the reply Robert,
However I believe the main design issue is:
If there is a rack ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) that contains all the
blocks (stored in blockToNode hashMap), regardless of the order, the split
operation terminates after the rack gets processed, That means remaining
racks ( listed in rackToBlock hashMap) will not get processed . For more
details look at file CombineFileInputFormat.JAVA, method getMoreSplits(),
while loop starting at line 344.
Best Regards
Amir Sanjar
Linux System Management Architect and Lead
IBM Senior Software Engineer
Phone# 512-286-8393
Fax# 512-838-8858
From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <co...@hadoop.apache.org>
Date: 03/22/2012 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
If it really is the ordering of the hash map I would say no it should not,
and the code should be updated. If ordering matters we need to use a map
that guarantees a given order, and hash map is not one of them.
--Bobby Evans
On 3/22/12 7:24 AM, "Kumar Ravi" <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this JIRA.
I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
expected return value is 2.
So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of splits is
because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get created
is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict dependency
in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to determine
the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster? Is
this Working as designed?
Regards,
Kumar
Re: Question about Hadoop-8192 and rackToBlocks ordering
Posted by Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>.
If it really is the ordering of the hash map I would say no it should not, and the code should be updated. If ordering matters we need to use a map that guarantees a given order, and hash map is not one of them.
--Bobby Evans
On 3/22/12 7:24 AM, "Kumar Ravi" <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
We have been looking at IBM JDK junit failures on Hadoop-1.0.1
independently and have ran into the same failures as reported in this JIRA.
I have a question based upon what I have observed below.
We started debugging the problems in the testcase -
org.apache.hadoop.mapred.lib.TestCombineFileInputFormat
The testcase fails because the number of splits returned back from
CombineFileInputFormat.getSplits() is 1 when using IBM JDK whereas the
expected return value is 2.
So far, we have found the reason for this difference in number of splits is
because the order in which elements in the rackToBlocks hashmap get created
is in the reverse order that Sun JDK creates.
The question I have at this point is -- Should there be a strict dependency
in the order in which the rackToBlocks hashmap gets populated, to determine
the number of splits that get should get created in a hadoop cluster? Is
this Working as designed?
Regards,
Kumar