It might be helpful to analyze namenode metrics and logs.

What about some key metrics? Examples are callQueueLength, avgQueueTime,
avgProcessingTime and GC metrics.

In addition, is the number of threads(dfs.namenode.service.handler.count)
in the namenode sufficient?

Hopefully this will help.

Best regards.
Tom

Tale Hive <[email protected]> 于2022年2月14日周一 23:57写道:

> Hello.
>
> I encounter a strange problem with my namenode. I have the following
> architecture :
> - Two namenodes in HA
> - 600 datanodes
> - HDP 3.1.4
> - 150 millions of files and folders
>
> Sometimes, when I query the namenode with the hdfs client, I got a timeout
> error like this :
> hdfs dfs -ls -d /user/myuser
>
> 22/02/14 15:07:44 INFO retry.RetryInvocationHandler:
> org.apache.hadoop.net.ConnectTimeoutException: Call From
> <my-client-hostname>/<my-client-ip> to <active-namenode-hostname>:8020
> failed on socket timeout exception:
>   org.apache.hadoop.net.ConnectTimeoutException: 20000 millis timeout
> while waiting for channel to be ready for connect. ch :
> java.nio.channels.SocketChannel[connection-pending
> remote=<active-namenode-hostname>/<active-namenode-ip>:8020];
>   For more details see:  http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/SocketTimeout,
> while invoking ClientNamenodeProtocolTranslatorPB.getFileInfo over
> <active-namenode-hostname>/<active-namenode-ip>:8020 after 2 failover
> attempts. Trying to failover after sleeping for 2694ms.
>
> I checked the heap of the namenode and there is no problem (I have 75 GB
> of max heap, I'm around 50 used GB).
> I checked the threads of the clientRPC for the namenode and I'm at 200
> which respects the recommandations from hadoop operations book.
> I have serviceRPC enabled to prevent any problem which could be coming
> from datanodes or ZKFC.
> General resources seems OK, CPU usage is pretty fine, same for memory,
> network or IO.
> No firewall is enabled on my namenodes nor my client.
>
> I was wondering what could cause this problem, please ?
>
> Thank you in advance for your help !
>
> Best regards.
>
> T@le
>

Reply via email to