hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Haohui Mai (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HDFS-6757) Simplify lease manager with INodeID
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:16:40 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6757?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14079892#comment-14079892
] 

Haohui Mai commented on HDFS-6757:
----------------------------------

Thanks [~daryn] for the review. I'm updating my patch to address the comments. Here are some
of my thoughts:

bq. Why not track inodes directly instead of via Longs? It will avoid unnecessary lookups
in multiple places.

It might not be sufficient as previous implementation of snapshot might replace an inode with
its subclass (e.g., replace {{INodeDirectory}} to {{INodeDirectoryWithSnapshots}}). I'm not
sure whether the behavior still exists today, I think [~jingzhao] might have a better idea
on whether this is okay. [~jingzhao], can you comment on this?

{quote}
However, isn't a bug if there's no lease during a close op? Perhaps removeLeases skips missing
leases and calls a removeLease that requires a lease, and the close edit op calls removeLease?

FSImageFormatPBINode#serializeFileUCSection skips non-existent inodes reported from the lease
manager. When would this happen other than due to bug that corrupted the lease manager?
{quote}

I think that your points are quite fair. My thinking is that even though the lease manager
is buggy, NN should continue to function when replay edit logs / saving namespaces instead
of crashing. Though not ideal, but it allows NN to tolerate the bugs and to treat them as
lease recoveries. Please see {{TestSaveNamespace#testSaveNamespaceWithDanglingLease}} for
more details.

I'm updating my patch to print out warnings to help developers to catch these bugs.


bq. In serialization's special handling of UC snapshot files: Is this for all files in the
mutable snapshotted directory, or immutable files only in a snapshot? If the latter, isn't
it a bug that the lease wasn't already revoked?

I think that the use case is that the user takes a snapshot which contains an opened file,
and then deletes the file subsequently. Maybe [~jingzhao] will have a better idea on this.

bq. My concern is how the current NN will react to a dangling lease on the origin of the renamed
path. What happens when it saves the image, checkpoints, applies edits for subsequent creates
of the origin path, when another client tries to recreate the origin path, etc?

You're right that the new lease manager won't (and doesn't need to) update the lease during
the renames, but I'm not sure that I fully understand your comments. Are you concerned about
the new lease manager will mix the leases between the original and the renamed paths? Based
on my understanding it should not happen because inode ids are unique, but I might misunderstand
your comments so please feel free to provide more details.

> Simplify lease manager with INodeID
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-6757
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6757
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Haohui Mai
>            Assignee: Haohui Mai
>         Attachments: HDFS-6757.000.patch, HDFS-6757.001.patch, HDFS-6757.002.patch, HDFS-6757.003.patch
>
>
> Currently the lease manager records leases based on path instead of inode ids. Therefore,
the lease manager needs to carefully keep track of the path of active leases during renames
and deletes. This can be a non-trivial task.
> This jira proposes to simplify the logic by tracking leases using inodeids instead of
paths.



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

Mime
View raw message