[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3974?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14711851#comment-14711851
]
Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-3974:
---------------------------------------------
It strikes me as non-critical. It's important to prevent regression, but it shouldn't hold
up releasing at all, so long as the things we're releasing for are themselves tested.
> Modify Randomwalk Bulk module to catch ACCUMULO-3967
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-3974
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3974
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: test
> Reporter: Josh Elser
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 1.6.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.0
>
>
> [~ecn] asked me after I committed a fix for ACCUMULO-3967 "why didn't randomwalk catch
this bug?"
> I think we could potentially have caught this if in Setup we pre-split the table to be
a large collection of sequentially increasing tablets. It's not a guarantee catch (since the
bug itself was only shown in the case of import failures and the tablet distribution hasn't
changed).
> Alternatively, we could copy the existing bulk module into a new module. In this module,
we remove the splitting and merging, instead keeping a static split distribution. This would
be almost guaranteed to eventually recreate the scenario. Adding in a chaotic balancer, even
more likely to reproduce.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
|