New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
HADOOP-16696: ABFS Always read ahead config, to use read ahead even for non sequential reads. #1708
Open
sapant-msft
wants to merge
11
commits into
apache:trunk
Choose a base branch
from
sapant-msft:sapant/HADOOP-16696
base: trunk
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+127
−11
Open
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3aa737f
Merge pull request #1 from apache/trunk
sapant-msft 14444a8
always read ahead config added to abfs, to use read ahead even for no…
saurabhpant93 332d346
passing the config directly to abfsinputstream
sapant-msft faec2f6
Fixing checkstyle related issues
sapant-msft 8cd4cb8
Checkstyle fixes 2
sapant-msft 3a45472
Added test to check for correctness of AlwaysReadAhead option
sapant-msft 82d92bd
return type fix
sapant-msft 5f5314a
whitespace fix
sapant-msft 7564c57
Fixes 1126
sapant-msft 7e97c66
fix for scale test
saurabhpant93 4b4f86a
whitespace fix
saurabhpant93 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure that passing the full config down is/is not the right approach compared to passing the explicit options in. Can you justify this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The number of options we are passing to the Stream has increased to 4, causing Hadoop check style related issues (total arguments > 8). Also, increasing the number of arguments doesn't feel like a scalable approach, in my opinion. I agree, passing the whole abfsConfig object isn't very elegant either. How would you feel about a new abfsInputStreamConfig structure (class), to be used for passing stream related config options?
Thanks,
Saurabh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd prefer some structure "ReadContext" to pass in