Originally published May 29, 2015 at the GBIF Developer blog.
Just a short post on the dangers of filling your HDFS disks. It’s a warning you’ll hear at conferences and in best practices blog posts like this one, but usually with only a vague consequence of “bad things will happen”. We upgraded from CDH 5.2.0 to CDH 5.4.2 this past weekend and learned the hard way: bad things will happen.
The Machine Configuration
The upgrade went fine in our dev cluster (which has almost no data in HDFS) so we weren’t expecting problems in production. Our production cluster is of course slightly different than our (much smaller) dev cluster. In production we have 3 masters, where one holds the NameNode and another holds the SecondaryNameNode (we’re not yet using a High Availability setup, but it’s in the plan). We have 12 DataNodes where each one has 13 disks dedicated to HDFS storage: 12 are 1TB and one is 512GB. They are formatted with 0% reserved blocks for root. The machines are evenly split into two racks.
Pre Upgrade Status
We were at about 75% total HDFS usage with only a few percent difference between machines. We were configured to use Round Robin block placement (dfs.datanode.fsdataset.volume.choosing.policy) with 10GB reserved for non-hdfs use (dfs.datanode.du.reserved), which are the defaults in CDH manager. Each of the 1TB disks was around 700GB used (of 932GB usable), and the 512 GB disks were all at their limit: 456GB used (of 466GB usable). That left only the configured 10GB free for non-hdfs use on the small disks. Our disks are mounted in the pattern /mnt/disk_a, /mnt/disk_b and so on, with /mnt/disk_m as the small disk. We’re using the free version of CDHM so we can’t do rolling upgrades, meaning this upgrade would bringing everything down. And because our cluster is getting full (> 80% usage is another rumoured “bad things” threshold) we have reduced one class of data (user’s occurrence downloads) to a replication factor of 2 (from the default of 3). This is considered somewhere between naughty and criminal, and you’ll see why below.
We followed the recommended procedure and did the oozie, hive, and CDH manager backups, downloaded the latest parcels, and pressed the big Update button. Everything appeared to be going fine until HDFS tried to start up again, where the symptom was that it was taking a really long time (several minutes, after which the CDHM upgrade process finally gave up saying the DataNodes weren’t making contact). Looking at the NameNode logs we see that it was performing a “Block Pool Upgrade”, which took btw 90 and 120 seconds for each of our ~700GB disks. Here’s an excerpt of where it worked without problems:
2015-05-23 20:18:53,715 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Lock on /mnt/disk_a/dfs/dn/in_use.lock acquired by nodename email@example.com 2015-05-23 20:18:53,811 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Analyzing storage directories for bpid BP-2033573672-126.96.36.199-1367832131535 2015-05-23 20:18:53,811 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Locking is disabled for /mnt/disk_a/dfs/dn/current/BP-2033573672-188.8.131.52-1367832131535 2015-05-23 20:18:53,823 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Upgrading block pool storage directory /mnt/disk_a/dfs/dn/current/BP-2033573672-184.108.40.206-1367832131535. old LV = -56; old CTime = 1416737045694. new LV = -56; new CTime = 1432405112136 2015-05-23 20:20:33,565 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: HardLinkStats: 59768 Directories, including 53157 Empty Directories, 0 single Link operations, 6611 multi-Link operations, linking 22536 files, total 22536 linkable files. Also physically copied 0 other files. 2015-05-23 20:20:33,609 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Upgrade of block pool BP-2033573672-220.127.116.11-1367832131535 at /mnt/disk_a/dfs/dn/current/BP-2033573672-18.104.22.168-1367832131535 is complete
That upgrade time happens sequentially for each disk, so even the though the machines were upgrading in parallel, we were still looking at ~30 minutes of downtime for the whole cluster. As if that wasn’t sufficiently worrying, then we finally get to disk_m, our nearly full 512G disk:
2015-05-23 20:53:05,814 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Lock on /mnt/disk_m/dfs/dn/in_use.lock acquired by nodename firstname.lastname@example.org 2015-05-23 20:53:05,869 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Analyzing storage directories for bpid BP-2033573672-22.214.171.124-1367832131535 2015-05-23 20:53:05,870 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Locking is disabled for /mnt/disk_m/dfs/dn/current/BP-2033573672-126.96.36.199-1367832131535 2015-05-23 20:53:05,886 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Upgrading block pool storage directory /mnt/disk_m/dfs/dn/current/BP-2033573672-188.8.131.52-1367832131535. old LV = -56; old CTime = 1416737045694. new LV = -56; new CTime = 1432405112136 2015-05-23 20:54:12,469 WARN org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Failed to analyze storage directories for block pool BP-2033573672-184.108.40.206-1367832131535 java.io.IOException: Cannot create directory /mnt/disk_m/dfs/dn/current/BP-2033573672-220.127.116.11-1367832131535/current/finalized/subdir91/subdir168 at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataStorage.linkBlocksHelper(DataStorage.java:1259) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataStorage.linkBlocksHelper(DataStorage.java:1296) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataStorage.linkBlocksHelper(DataStorage.java:1296) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataStorage.linkBlocks(DataStorage.java:1023) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockPoolSliceStorage.linkAllBlocks(BlockPoolSliceStorage.java:647) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockPoolSliceStorage.doUpgrade(BlockPoolSliceStorage.java:456) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockPoolSliceStorage.doTransition(BlockPoolSliceStorage.java:390) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockPoolSliceStorage.loadStorageDirectory(BlockPoolSliceStorage.java:171) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockPoolSliceStorage.loadBpStorageDirectories(BlockPoolSliceStorage.java:214) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockPoolSliceStorage.recoverTransitionRead(BlockPoolSliceStorage.java:242) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataStorage.addStorageLocations(DataStorage.java:396) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataStorage.recoverTransitionRead(DataStorage.java:478) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataNode.initStorage(DataNode.java:1397) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataNode.initBlockPool(DataNode.java:1362) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BPOfferService.verifyAndSetNamespaceInfo(BPOfferService.java:317) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BPServiceActor.connectToNNAndHandshake(BPServiceActor.java:227) at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BPServiceActor.run(BPServiceActor.java:839) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745) 2015-05-23 20:54:12,476 WARN org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: Failed to add storage for block pool: BP-2033573672-18.104.22.168-1367832131535 : Cannot create directory /mnt/disk_m/dfs/dn/current/BP-2033573672-22.214.171.124-1367832131535/current/finalized/subdir91/subdir168
The somewhat misleading “Cannot create directory” is not a file permission problem but rather a disk full problem. During this block pool upgrade some temporary space is needed for rewriting metadata, and that space is apparently more than the 10G that was available to “non-HDFS” (which we’ve concluded means “not HDFS storage files, but everything else is fair game”). Because some space is available to start the upgrade, it begins, but then when it exhausts the disk it fails, and This Kills The DataNode. It does clean up after itself, but prevents the DataNode from starting, meaning our cluster was on its knees and in no danger of standing up.
So the problem was lack of free space, which on 10 of our 12 machines we were able to solve by wiping temporary files from the colocated yarn directory. Those 10 machines were then able to upgrade their disk_m and started up. We still had two nodes down and unfortunately they were in different racks, so that meant we had a big pile of our replication factor 2 files missing blocks (the default HDFS block replication policy places the second and subsequent copies on a different rack from the first copy).
While digging around in the different properties that we thought could affect our disks and HDFS behaviour we were also restarting the failing DataNodes regularly. At some point the log message changed to:
WARN org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.common.Storage: java.io.FileNotFoundException: /mnt/disk_m/dfs/dn/in_use.lock (No space left on device)
After that message the DataNode started, but with disk_m marked as a failed volume. We’re not sure why this happened but presume that after one of our failures it didn’t clean up it’s temp files on disk_m and then on subsequent restarts found the disk completely full and (rightly) considered it unusable and tried to carry on. With the final two DataNodes up we had almost all of our cluster, minus the two failed volumes. There were only 35 corrupted files (missing blocks) left after they came up. These were files set to replication factor 2, and by bad luck had both copies of some of their blocks on the failed disk_m (one from rack1, one from rack2).
It would not have been the end of the world to just delete the corrupted user downloads (they were all over a year old) but on principle, it would not be The Right Thing To Do.
On inodes and hardlinks
The normal directory structure of the dfs dir in a DataNode is /dfs/dn/current/
With the cluster happy again we made a few changes to hopefully ensure this doesn’t happen again:
dfs.datanode.du.reserved:25GB this guarantees 25GB free on each volume (up from 10GB) and should be enough to allow a future upgrade to happen
dfs.datanode.available-space-volume-choosing-policy.balanced-space-preference-fraction:1.0 together these two direct new blocks to disks that have more free space, thereby leaving our now full /disk_m alone
This was one small taste of what can go wrong with filling heterogenous disks in an HDFS cluster. We’re sure there are worse dangers lurking on the full-disk horizon, so hopefully you’ve learned from our pain and will give yourself some breathing room when things start to fill up. Also, don’t use a replication factor of less than 3 if there’s anyway you can help it.