hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron T. Myers (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HDFS-2602) Standby needs to maintain BlockInfo while following edits
Date Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:46:31 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-2602?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13170365#comment-13170365

Aaron T. Myers commented on HDFS-2602:

bq. I also see that my comments in HDFS-1108 have been incorporated. So conceptually it all
looks good.

This patch literally includes the latest patch you posted on HDFS-1108. I just didn't want
to wait for that to get committed before making progress on this JIRA.

As Todd said, it wouldn't be too difficult to separate them, but they seem pretty naturally
one unit. I'd personally prefer to just commit this as-is, but if you feel strongly, Konst,
I can separate them.
> Standby needs to maintain BlockInfo while following edits
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HDFS-2602
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-2602
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: ha
>    Affects Versions: HA branch (HDFS-1623)
>            Reporter: Todd Lipcon
>            Assignee: Aaron T. Myers
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments: HDFS-2602.patch, HDFS-2602.patch, HDFS-2602.patch
> As described in HDFS-1975:
> When we close a file, or add another block to a file, we write OP_CLOSE or OP_ADD in
the txn log. FSEditLogLoader, when it sees these types of transactions, creates new BlockInfo
objects for all of the blocks listed in the transaction. These new BlockInfos have no block
locations associated. So, when we close a file, the SBNN loses its block locations info for
that file and is no longer "hot".
> I have an ugly hack which copies over the old BlockInfos from the existing INode, but
I'm not convinced it's the right way. It might be cleaner to add new opcode types like OP_ADD_ADDITIONAL_BLOCK,
and actually treat OP_CLOSE as just a finalization of INodeFileUnderConstruction to INodeFile,
rather than replacing block info at all.

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