hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eli Collins (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HDFS-15) Rack replication policy can be violated for over replicated blocks
Date Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:58:48 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12976172#action_12976172
] 

Eli Collins commented on HDFS-15:
---------------------------------

Patch passes all unit tests on branch 20. test-patch results:

{noformat}
     [exec] 
     [exec] -1 overall.  
     [exec] 
     [exec]     +1 @author.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.
     [exec] 
     [exec]     +1 tests included.  The patch appears to include 15 new or modified tests.
     [exec] 
     [exec]     +1 javadoc.  The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.
     [exec] 
     [exec]     +1 javac.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac compiler
warnings.
     [exec] 
     [exec]     +1 findbugs.  The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs warnings.
     [exec] 
     [exec]     -1 Eclipse classpath. The patch causes the Eclipse classpath to differ from
the contents of the lib directories.
     [exec] 
{noformat}

> Rack replication policy can be violated for over replicated blocks 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-15
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.20.3
>            Reporter: Hairong Kuang
>            Assignee: Jitendra Nath Pandey
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 0.20.3, 0.21.0
>
>         Attachments: hdfs-15-b20-1.patch, HDFS-15.4.patch, HDFS-15.5.patch, HDFS-15.6.patch,
HDFS-15.patch, HDFS-15.patch.2, HDFS-15.patch.3
>
>
> HDFS replicas placement strategy guarantees that the replicas of a block exist on at
least two racks when its replication factor is greater than one. But fsck still reports that
the replicas of some blocks  end up on one rack.
> The cause of the problem is that decommission and corruption handling only check the
block's replication factor but not the rack requirement. When an over-replicated block loses
a replica due to decomission, corruption, or heartbeat lost, namenode does not take any action
to guarantee that remaining replicas are on different racks.
>  

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message