hadoop-common-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Broberg (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HADOOP-7909) Implement Splittable Gzip based on a signature in a gzip header field
Date Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:26:41 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7909?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13167031#comment-13167031

Tim Broberg commented on HADOOP-7909:

> A "normal" gzipped file won't become splittable with this codec. The way I interpret
what I've read so far is that this comes very close to defining a new fileformat: a block
compressed deflate file that due to the clever way it is stored can also be read by any existing
gzip decompression tool.

I'd rather say a new option than a new format, but I would agree with everything else here.
Splittable streams / files decode normally, normal streams / files would not be rendered splittable
under this scheme.

> 1.how does the Hadoop job system know that it should try to create splits for the input

This is one area I would very much like feedback. I would propose either A - by selecting
a dedicated to splittable-gzip codec, or B - by selecting a splittable option in a modified
version of the existing codec much like the compression level option is selected today.

> 2.should the files use the .gz file extension? Or perhaps something like .sgz (splittable
gz) instead?

I'm torn here as well. Given that we are conforming to the existing gzip spec, and given that
a aplitting codec can decode non-splittable streams and the non-splitting codec can decode
splitting streams, is there ant harm in encoding splittable gzip into .gz's?

Certainly if we take option B above such that the same codec encodes both formats we would
make the same codec decode both, and I can see no reason at all to have a separate fiel extension.

> 3.what will be the advantages over the existing splittable compression options we have
now (LZO/Snappy/Bzip2/...)? Why would I as a Hadoop developer/administrator want to choose
this codec?

 - is faster to decode and *much* faster to encode
 - does not compress as thoroughly
 - is not splittable in and of itself (but can be used in Sequence Files and Avro which are
 - inferior to snappy in speed
 - comparable to snappy in compression ratio
 - splittable by means of an indexing scheme which creates a separate file
 - encumbered with some licensing issues
 - inferior to gzip/deflate in speed
 - supperior to gzip/deflate in compression
 - splittable by a bit by bit signature search
   - the signature is only 48 bits in length
   - the value for the signature is not random and may appear in natural data

So, you would choose this codec when
 - you value compression efficiency over speed (compared to LZO and Snappy)
 - you want splittability, but don't want to deal with a Sequence File / Avro
 - you want more speed and/or splitting robustness than Bzip2 can provide

Note also that this scheme closely follows the Bzip2 splittability model such that we don't
have to implement yet another set of basic splitability classes. The LZO scheme is a radically
different beast.

Having said all this, gzip explicitly does not require the compression algorithm to be Deflate.
This scheme is adaptable to allow splitting of any compression format by using a different
CM value in the gzip header, although zlib libraries would not decode this format. Supporting
other formats would require the gzip decoder to evaluate the CM byte and pass control to the
appropriate decompressor rather than just running the whole record, header and all into zlib
as we do now.

Thanks so much for your review, thoughts, and questions!

    - Tim.
> Implement Splittable Gzip based on a signature in a gzip header field
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HADOOP-7909
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7909
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: io
>            Reporter: Tim Broberg
>            Priority: Minor
>   Original Estimate: 672h
>  Remaining Estimate: 672h
> I propose to take the suggestion of PIG-42 extend it to
>  - add a more robust header such that false matches are vanishingly unlikely
>  - repeat initial bytes of the header for very fast split searching
>  - break down the stream into modest size chunks (~64k?) for rapid parallel encode and
>  - provide length information on the blocks in advance to make block decode possible
in hardware
> An optional extra header would be added to the gzip header, adding 36 bytes.
> <sh> := <version><signature><uncompressedDataLength><compressedRecordLength>
> <version> := 1 byte version field allowing us to later adjust the deader definition
> <signature> := 23 byte signature of the form aaaaaaabcdefghijklmnopr where each
letter represents a randomly generated byte
> <uncompressedDataLength> := 32-bit length of the data compressed into this record
> <compressedRecordLength> := 32-bit length of this record as compressed, including
all headers, trailers
> If multiple extra headers are present and the split header is not the first header, the
initial implementation will not recognize the split.
> Input streams would be broken down into blocks which are appended, much as BlockCompressorStream
does. Non-split-aware decoders will ignore this header and decode the appended blocks without
ever noticing the difference.
> The signature has >= 132 bits of entropy which is sufficient for 80+ years of Moore's
law before collisions become a significant concern.
> The first 7 bytes are repeated for speed. When splitting, the signature search will look
for the 32-bit value aaaa every 4 bytes until a hit is found, then the next 4 bytes identify
the alignment of the header mod 4 to identify a potential header match, then the whole header
is validated at that offset. So, there is a load, compare, branch, and increment per 4 bytes
> The existing gzip implementations do not provide access to the optional header fields
(nor comment nor filename), so the entire gzip header will have to be reimplemented and compression
will need to be done using the raw deflate options of the native library / built in deflater.
> There will be some degradation when using splittable gzip:
>  - The gzip headers will each be 36 bytes larger. (4 byte extra header header, 32 byte
extra header)
>  - There will be one gzip header per block.
>  - History will have to be reset with each block to allow starting from scratch at that
offset resulting in some uncompressed bytes that would otherwise have been strings.
> Issues to consider:
>  - Is the searching fast enough without the repeating 7 bytes in the signature?
>  - Should this be a patch to the existing gzip classes to add a switch, or should this
be a whole new class?
>  - Which level does this belong at? CompressionStream? Compressor?
>  - Is it more advantageous to encode the signature into the less dense comment field?
>  - Optimum block size? Smaller splits faster and may conserve memory, larger provides
slightly better compression ratio.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


View raw message