Mailing-List: contact notifications-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jira@apache.org
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:22:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Anson Liu (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12720354.1402410607961.130466.1402698123052@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12720354.1402410607961@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12720354.1402410607961@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2882) Initialize double-sets the
 initial configuration for the metadata and root tables
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2882?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14031267#comment-14031267 ] 

Anson Liu commented on ACCUMULO-2882:
-------------------------------------

Hi Sean,

Do you mean that initMetadataConfig should use passed tableID if supplied in parameter and create it's own ID as it currently does if not? Also should the passed tableID be used for both RootTable.ID and MetadataTable.ID? Thanks. 

> Initialize double-sets the initial configuration for the metadata and root tables
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-2882
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2882
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: start
>    Affects Versions: 1.6.0
>            Reporter: Sean Busbey
>            Assignee: Anson Liu
>            Priority: Trivial
>              Labels: newbie
>             Fix For: 1.6.1, 1.7.0
>
>         Attachments: ACCUMULO-2882.patch
>
>
> We handle initializing a new instance by calling a utility method on each of the metadata and root tables. That utility method ignores the passed table id and instead sets the initial table configs for each of the metadata and root tables.
> That means we end up setting them twice. I believe the action is idempotent (since we're using the same values each time), so no failure should result.
> {code}
>   public static void initMetadataConfig(String tableId) throws IOException {
>     try {
>       Configuration conf = CachedConfiguration.getInstance();
>       int max = conf.getInt("dfs.replication.max", 512);
>       // Hadoop 0.23 switched the min value configuration name
>       int min = Math.max(conf.getInt("dfs.replication.min", 1), conf.getInt("dfs.namenode.replication.min", 1));
>       if (max < 5)
>         setMetadataReplication(max, "max");
>       if (min > 5)
>         setMetadataReplication(min, "min");
>       for (Entry<String,String> entry : initialMetadataConf.entrySet()) {
>          /* XXX There should only be one of these, and the table id should 
>                      be the one passed in.
>            */
>         if (!TablePropUtil.setTableProperty(RootTable.ID, entry.getKey(), entry.getValue()))
>           throw new IOException("Cannot create per-table property " + entry.getKey());
>         if (!TablePropUtil.setTableProperty(MetadataTable.ID, entry.getKey(), entry.getValue()))
>           throw new IOException("Cannot create per-table property " + entry.getKey());
>       }
>     } catch (Exception e) {
>       log.fatal("error talking to zookeeper", e);
>       throw new IOException(e);
>     }
>   }
> {code}


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)