Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-hadoop-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 77307 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2008 06:06:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Jan 2008 06:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 74857 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2008 06:05:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-hadoop-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 74837 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2008 06:05:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact hadoop-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 74828 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jan 2008 06:05:55 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:05:55 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.2 required=10.0 tests=FS_REPLICA,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of chris@rapleaf.com designates 208.96.16.213 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.96.16.213] (HELO mail.rapleaf.com) (208.96.16.213) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:05:41 +0000 Received: from mail.rapleaf.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rapleaf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995E054C5F3 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:05:32 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer; b=Yj09+DGSQSZ0R7m8AGePS9eW0fAwtvnILpmwUlv2eo6YfgbEMTOcjxVmm+q/Fmvns16i03VhqCwAKcga4AM/2LkTGhr3Mu4zlm+6REXTCOUcyLhqXFHu5Kt8TMgfi65+7se2YOeUyFtysxbg2KdiILJr9dfpsWRT2vUsfZKFVnI=; c=nofws; d=rapleaf.com; q=dns; s=m1 Received: from [192.168.109.112] (unknown [192.168.109.112]) by mail.rapleaf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3155154C58E for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:05:32 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <47828C5A.3010800@yahoo-inc.com> References: <028197BF-37EA-424C-B817-043AAD444FB7@rapleaf.com> <477E9EE4.2030005@yahoo-inc.com> <47828C5A.3010800@yahoo-inc.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-274224241 Message-Id: <6FE30D17-69A4-4B8F-897C-D0394BE98913@rapleaf.com> From: Chris Kline Subject: Re: Under replicated block doesn't get fixed until DFS restart Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:03:59 -0800 To: hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail-1-274224241 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sure. Here are 2 blocks. ----- blk_4522585614366970680 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-02:2008-01-02 17:06:17,058 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.allocateBlock: /data/hbase1/hregion_70236052/ compaction.dir/hregion_70236052/info/mapfiles/-1/index. blk_4522585614366970680 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-02:2008-01-02 17:06:17,062 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.addStoredBlock: blockMap updated: 10.100.11.31:7277 is added to blk_4522585614366970680 ------ Note that the following is AFTER I restarted HDFS ------- hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:15,882 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: UnderReplicationBlocks.update blk_4522585614366970680 curReplicas 1 curExpectedReplicas 3 oldReplicas 0 oldExpectedReplicas 3 curPri 0 oldPri 3 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:15,882 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.UnderReplicationBlock.update:blk_4522585614366970680 has only 1 replicas and need 3 replicas so is added to neededReplications at priority level 0 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:58,808 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.UnderReplicationBlock.remove: Removing block blk_4522585614366970680 from priority queue 0 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:58,808 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.pendingTransfer: blk_4522585614366970680 is removed from neededReplications to pendingReplications hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:58,808 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.pendingTransfer: ask 10.100.11.31:7277 to replicate blk_4522585614366970680 to datanode(s) 10.100.11.59:7277 10.100.11.64:7277 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:59,716 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.blockReceived: blk_4522585614366970680 is received from 10.100.11.59:7277 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:59,716 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.addStoredBlock: blockMap updated: 10.100.11.59:7277 is added to blk_4522585614366970680 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:59,717 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.blockReceived: blk_4522585614366970680 is received from 10.100.11.64:7277 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:59,717 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.addStoredBlock: blockMap updated: 10.100.11.64:7277 is added to blk_4522585614366970680 ------ blk_1984980330938654629 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-02:2008-01-02 17:11:17,231 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.allocateBlock: /data/hbase1/hregion_70236052/ compaction.dir/hregion_70236052/info/done. blk_1984980330938654629 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-02:2008-01-02 17:11:17,234 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.addStoredBlock: blockMap updated: 10.100.11.31:7277 is added to blk_1984980330938654629 ------ Note that the following is AFTER I restarted HDFS ------- hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:15,856 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: UnderReplicationBlocks.update blk_1984980330938654629 curReplicas 1 curExpectedReplicas 3 oldReplicas 0 oldExpectedReplicas 3 curPri 0 oldPri 3 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:15,856 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.UnderReplicationBlock.update:blk_1984980330938654629 has only 1 replicas and need 3 replicas so is added to neededReplications at priority level 0 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:55,805 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.UnderReplicationBlock.remove: Removing block blk_1984980330938654629 from priority queue 0 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:55,805 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.pendingTransfer: blk_1984980330938654629 is removed from neededReplications to pendingReplications hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:55,805 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.pendingTransfer: ask 10.100.11.31:7277 to replicate blk_1984980330938654629 to datanode(s) 10.100.11.62:7277 10.100.11.61:7277 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:56,660 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.blockReceived: blk_1984980330938654629 is received from 10.100.11.62:7277 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:56,660 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.addStoredBlock: blockMap updated: 10.100.11.62:7277 is added to blk_1984980330938654629 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:56,663 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.blockReceived: blk_1984980330938654629 is received from 10.100.11.61:7277 hadoop-rapleaf-namenode-tf1.rapleaf.com.log.2008-01-03:2008-01-03 16:17:56,663 INFO org.apache.hadoop.dfs.StateChange: BLOCK* NameSystem.addStoredBlock: blockMap updated: 10.100.11.61:7277 is added to blk_1984980330938654629 On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Raghu Angadi wrote: > > Could you grep for one of the block ids (say 4522585614366970680) > in the namenode logs and post them here with timestamps? > > thanks, > Raghu. > > Chris Kline wrote: >> I believe there was at least one good block (see fsck output). >> All data nodes were up at the time according to the web page. I >> grep'd the namenode log files for the under replicated blocks and >> only got an entry for when it was created and entries for when the >> replication was fixed after the HDFS restart. Here is the result >> of fsck: >> $HADOOP_HOME/bin/hadoop fsck / >> ....................................................... >> /data/hbase1/hregion_70236052/compaction.dir/hregion_70236052/info/ >> done: Under replicated blk_1984980330938654629. Target Replicas >> is 3 but found 1 replica(s). >> .. >> /data/hbase1/hregion_70236052/info/info/2807320534360768620: >> Under replicated blk_1717622121416314549. Target Replicas is 3 but >> found 1 replica(s). >> . >> /data/hbase1/hregion_70236052/info/mapfiles/2807320534360768620/ >> data: Under replicated blk_-5019714262388221150. Target Replicas >> is 3 but found 1 replica(s). >> . >> /data/hbase1/hregion_70236052/info/mapfiles/2807320534360768620/ >> index: Under replicated blk_4522585614366970680. Target Replicas >> is 3 but found 1 replica(s). >> ......................................... >> /data/hbase1/log_10.100.11.63_1199307142676_60020/hlog.dat.000: >> Under replicated blk_-2871471426720379908. Target Replicas is 3 >> but found 1 replica(s). >> ....... >> /data/hbase1/log_10.100.11.65_1199307142711_60020/hlog.dat.000: >> MISSING 1 blocks of total size 0 B. >> .Status: CORRUPT >> Total size: 71009158262 B >> Total blocks: 16318 (avg. block size 4351584 B) >> Total dirs: 21416 >> Total files: 16253 >> Over-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %) >> Under-replicated blocks: 5 (0.03064101 %) >> Target replication factor: 3 >> Real replication factor: 2.9993873 >> The filesystem under path '/' is CORRUPT >> -Chris >> On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Raghu Angadi wrote: >>> This is of course not expected. A more detailed info or log >>> message would help. Do you know if there is at least one good >>> block? Sometimes, the remaining "good" block might actually be >>> corrupted and thus can not replicate itself. Restarting might >>> just have brought up the datanodes that were down (for whatever >>> reason) before the restart. >>> >>> Raghu. >>> >>> Chris Kline wrote: >>>> fsck reports several under replicated blocks, but these do not >>>> get fixed until I restart DFS. fsck also reports a missing >>>> block at the same time, but this should affect the function of >>>> fixing under replicated blocks. Has anyone seen this before? >>>> I'm running 0.15.0. >>>> -Chris Kline >>> >> -Chris >> We're hiring engineers. $10,007 reward for referrals we hire. > -Chris We're hiring engineers. $10,007 reward for referrals we hire. --Apple-Mail-1-274224241--