I'm currently evaluating HBase as a Datastore, but one question was left unanswered: HBase stores many copies of the same object on many nodes (aka replication). As HBase features so-called strong consistency (in constrast to eventual consistent) it guarantees that every replica returns the same value if read.
As I understood the HBase concept, when reading values, first the HBase master is queried for a (there must be more than one) RegionServer providing the data. Then I can issue read and write requests without invention of the master. How can then replication work?
How does HBase provide concistency?
How do write operations internally work?
Do write operations block until all replicas are written (=> synchronous replication). If yes, who manages this transfer?
How does HDFS come into the game?
I have already read the BigTable-Paper and searched the docs, but I found no further information on the architecture of HBase.
Thanks!
hbase does not do any replication in the way that you are thinking. It is built on top of HDFS, which provides replication for the data blocks that make up the hbase tables. However, only one regionserver ever serves or writes data for any given row.
Usually regionservers are colocated with data nodes. All data writes in HDFS go to the local node first, if possible, another node on the same rack, and another node on a different rack (given a replication factor of 3 in HDFS). So, a region server will eventually end up with all of its data served from the local server.
As for blocking: the only block is until the WAL (write ahead log) is flushed to disk. This guarentees that no data is lost as the log can always be replayed. Note that older version of hbase did not have this worked out because HDFS did not support a durable append operation until recently. We are in a strange state for the moment as there is no official Apache release of Hadoop that supports both append and HBase. In the meantime, you can either apply the append patch yourself, or use the Cloudera distribution (recommended).
HBase does have a related replication feature that will allow you to replicate data from one cluster to another.
Related
I have read multiple articles about how HBase gain data locality i.e link
or HBase the Definitive guide book.
I have understood that when re-writing HFile, Hadoop would write the blocks on the same machine which is actually the same Region Server that made compaction and created bigger file on Hadoop. everything is well understood yet.
Questions:
Assuming a Region server has a region file (HFile) which is splitted on Hadoop to multiple block i.e A,B,C. Does that means all block (A,B,C) would be written to the same region server?
What would happen if HFile after compaction has 10 blocks (huge file), but region server doesn't have storage for all of them? does it means we loose data locality, since those blocks would be written on other machine?
Thanks for the help.
HBase uses HDFS API to write data to the distributed file sytem (HDFS). I know this will increase your doubt on the data locality.
When a client writes data to HDFS using the hdfs API, it ensures that a copy of the data is written to the local datatnode (if applicable) and then go for replication.
Now I will answer your questions,
Yes. HFile(blocks) written by a specific RegionServer(RS) resides in the local datanode until it is moved for load balancing or recovery by the HMaster(will be back on major compaction). So the blocks A,B,C would be there in the same region server.
Yes. This may happen. But we can control the same by configuring region start and end key for each regions for HBase tables at creation time, which allows the data to be equally distributed in the cluster.
Hope this helps.
I was wondering what would be the best way to replicate the data present in a Hadoop cluster H1 in data center DC1 to another Hadoop cluster H2 in data center DC2 (warm backup preferably). I know that Hadoop does data replication and the number of copies of the data created is decided by the replication factor set in hdfs-site.xml. I have a few questions related to this
Would it make sense to have the data nodes of one cluster be spread across both data centers so that the data nodes for H1 would be present in both DC1 and DC2. If this makes sense and is viable, then does it mean we do not need H2?
Would it make sense to have the namenodes and datanodes distributed across both data centers rather than having only the datanodes distributed across both data centers?
I have also heard people use distcp and many tools build on top of distcp. But distcp does lazy backups and would prefer warm backups over cold ones.
Some people suggest using Kafka for this but I am not sure how to go about using it.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
It depends on what you are trying to protect against. If you want to protect against site failure, distcp seems to be the only option for cross datacenter replication. However, as you pointed out, distcp has limitations. You can use snapshots to protect against user mistakes or application corruptions because replication or multiple replicas will not protect against that. Other commercial tools are available for automating the backup process as well if you don't want to write code and maintain it.
Please pardon if this question has come up earlier as I'm not able to find any related question for this.
1) I want to know the reason why it is important to maintain the same replication factor(or for that matter any configuration) across the datanodes and namenodes in the cluster?
2) When we upload any file to HDFS, isn't it the namenode which manages the storage?
3) Wouldn't maintaining the configuration only on the namenodes suffice?
4) What are the implications of having the configuration different across namenode and datanodes?
Any Help is much appreciated. Thank you! :)
I will try to answer your question taking replication as an example.
Few things to keep in mind -
Data always resides on datanodes, Namenode never deals with data or store data, it only keeps metadata about the data.
Replication factor is configurable, you can change it for every file copy, for example file1 may have replication factor of 2 while file2 may have replication factor of say 3, in a similar way some other properties can also be configured at the time of execution.
2) When we upload any file to HDFS, isn't it the namenode which manages the storage?
I am not sure about what you exactly mean by namenode managing the storage, here is how a file upload to hdfs gets executed -
1) Client sends a request to Namenode for file upload to hdfs
2) Namenode based on the configuration(if not explicitly specified by the client application) calculates the number of blocks data will be broken into.
3) Namenode also decides which Datanodes will store the blocks, based on the replication factor specified in configuration(if not explicitly specified by the client application)
4) Namenode sends information calculated in step #2 and #3 to the client
5) Client application will break the file into blocks and write each block to 'a' Datanode say DN1.
6) Now DN1 will be responsible to replicate the received blocks to other Datanodes as chosen by the Namenode in #3; It will initiate replication when Namenode instructs it.
For you questions #3 and #4, it is important to understand that any distributed application will require a set of configurations available with each node to be able to interact with each other and also perform designated task as per expectation. In case every node chooses to have its own configuration what would be the basis of co-ordination? DN1 has replication factor of 5, while DN2 has of 2 how would data be actually replicated?
Update start
hdfs-site.xml contains lots of other config specifications as well for namenode, datanode and secondary namenode, some client and hdfs specific settings and not just the replication factor.
Now imagine having a 50 node cluster, would you like to go and configure on each node or simply copy a pre-configured file?
Update end
If you keep all configurations at one location, each node will need to connect to that shared resource to load configuration every time it has to perform an action, this would add to latency apart from consistency/synchronization issues in case any config property is changed.
Hope this helps.
Hadoop is designed to deal with large datasets. It's not a good idea to store a large dataset on a single machine because if your storage system or hard disk crashes, you may lose all of your data.
Before Hadoop, people were using a traditional system to store large amounts of data, but the traditional system was very costly. There were also challenges while analyzing large datasets from the traditional system as it was time consuming process to read data from the traditional system. With these things in mind, the Hadoop Framework was designed.
In the hadoop framework, when you load large amounts of data, it splits the data into small chunks, known as blocks. These blocks are basically used to place the data into a datanode in a distributed cluster, and also they also are used during the analysis of the data.
The region behind the splitting of the data is parallel processing and distributed storage (i.e.: you can store your data onto multiple machines, and when you want to analyze it you can do it via parallel analysis).
Now Coming to your questions:
Reason: Hadoop is a framework which allows distributed storage and computing. In other words, this means you can store the data onto multiple machines. It has functionality of replication that means you are keeping multiple copy (based on the replication factor) of the same data.
Ans1: Hadoop is designed to run on the commodity hardware and failures are common on commodity hardware so suppose if you store the data on a single machine and when your machine get crashed you will lose your entire data. But in the hadoop cluster you can recover the data from another replication( if you have replication factor more than 1) as hadoop doesn't store replicated copy of the data on the same machine where your original replication resides.These things are handled from hadoop itself.
Ans2: When you upload file on the HDFS, your actual data goes to the datanode and NameNode keep the metadata information of your data. NameNode metadata information conatains are like block name, block location, filename, directory location of the file.
Ans3: You need to maintain entire configuration related to your hadoop cluster. Maintaining one configuration file is not sufficient and further you may face other problem.
Ans4: NameNode configurations properties are related to NameNode functionality like namespace services metadata location etc,RPC address that handles all clients requests Datanode configuration properties are related to services which is performed by the DataNode like storage balancing among the DataNode's volumes,available disk space,the DataNode server address and port for data transfer
Please check this link to understand more about the different configuration property.
Please provide more clarification about the question 3 and 4 if you think something more you want to know.
HDFS is replicating to fact 3 in the same cluster. That is fine, but is there a way to set up HDFS so it can replicate also to different clusters/servers? Let say 1 replication in to the same cluster and the other one somewhere far away in another HDFS cluster.
If HDFS is not supporting this, are there any tools around Hadoop that allow us to do so? How do you guys replicate over other servers?
Currently there are no mechanisms for what you're asking for. Cross-cluster replication has been implemented for HBase, but not for HDFS. There is a plan to support cross datacenter replication in HDFS but it's not implemented yet.
You can use the distcp mechanism to copy your data to another cluster on a regular interval. This will place 3 replicas on each cluster (which is typically what you want for cross dc/cluster replication anyway). Note however that since this has to be done periodically, it's not exactly a replacement for realtime replication. If you lose a cluster in between copies, whatever data was written to the "primary" cluster will be lost until the cluster has been restored.
I would like to avoid Impala nodes unnecessarily requesting data from other nodes over the network in cases when the ideal data locality or layout is known at table creation time. This would be helpful with 'non-additive' operations where all records from a partition are needed at the same place (node) anyway (for ex. percentiles).
Is it possible to tell Impala that all data in a partition should always be co-located on a single node for any HDFS replica?
In Impala-SQL, I am not sure if the "PARTITIONED BY" clause provide this feature. In my understanding, Impala chunks its partitions into separate files on HDFS but HDFS does not guarantee the co-location of related files nor blocks by default (rather tries to achieve the opposite).
Found some information about Impala's impact on HDFS development but not clear if these are already implemented or still in plans:
http://www.slideshare.net/deview/aaron-myers-hdfs-impala
(slides 23-24)
Thank you in advance for all.
About the slides you mention ("Co-located block replicas") - it's about an HDFS feature (HDFS-2576) implemented in Hadoop 2.1. It provides a Java API to give hints to HDFS as to where the blocks should be placed.
It's not used in Impala as of 2014, but it definitely seems like building some groundwork for that - as it would give Impala a performance equivalent of specifying distribution key in traditional MPP databases.
No, that completely defeats the purpose of having a distributed file system and MPP computing. It also creates a single point of failure and a bottleneck especially if you're talking about a 250GB table that is joined to itself. Exactly the kind of problems that Hadoop was designed to solve. Partitioning data creates sub-directories in HDFS on the namenode and that data is then replicated throughout the datanodes in the cluster.