hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Colin Patrick McCabe (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (HDFS-7443) Datanode upgrade to BLOCKID_BASED_LAYOUT fails if duplicate block files are present in the same volume
Date Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:00:14 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7443?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14253798#comment-14253798
] 

Colin Patrick McCabe edited comment on HDFS-7443 at 12/19/14 6:59 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

bq. HDFS-6931 introduced a resolveDuplicateReplicas to handle the duplicated blk from diff
volume, this jira is to handle the dup in the same volume, am i right?

Right.  {{resolveDuplicateReplicas}} deals with multiple replicas on the same DataNode in
different volumes.  The HDFS-7443 code is for the intra-datanode case.  Additionally, {{resolveDuplicateReplicas}}
requires a {{VolumeMap}}, {{ReplicaMap}}, and other internal data structures.  We don't have
any of those here, just a list of files to be symlinked.  The rules of resolution are the
same, though.

bq. Findbugs said: Exceptional return value of java.io.File.delete() ignored in org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.TransferFsImage.deleteTmpFiles(List)

This findbugs warning is unrelated, as are the unit test failures


was (Author: cmccabe):
bq. HDFS-6931 introduced a resolveDuplicateReplicas to handle the duplicated blk from diff
volume, this jira is to handle the dup in the same volume, am i right?

My understanding is that {{resolveDuplicateReplicas}} deals with multiple replicas on the
same DataNode in different volumes.  This is for the intra-datanode case.  Additionally, {{resolveDuplicateReplicas}}
requires a {{VolumeMap}}, {{ReplicaMap}}, and other internal data structures.  We don't have
any of those here, just a list of files to be symlinked.  The rules of resolution are the
same, though.

bq. Findbugs said: Exceptional return value of java.io.File.delete() ignored in org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.TransferFsImage.deleteTmpFiles(List)

This findbugs warning is unrelated, as are the unit test failures

> Datanode upgrade to BLOCKID_BASED_LAYOUT fails if duplicate block files are present in
the same volume
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-7443
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7443
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.6.0
>            Reporter: Kihwal Lee
>            Assignee: Colin Patrick McCabe
>            Priority: Blocker
>         Attachments: HDFS-7443.001.patch, HDFS-7443.002.patch
>
>
> When we did an upgrade from 2.5 to 2.6 in a medium size cluster, about 4% of datanodes
were not coming up.  They treid data file layout upgrade for BLOCKID_BASED_LAYOUT introduced
in HDFS-6482, but failed.
> All failures were caused by {{NativeIO.link()}} throwing IOException saying {{EEXIST}}.
 The data nodes didn't die right away, but the upgrade was soon retried when the block pool
initialization was retried whenever {{BPServiceActor}} was registering with the namenode.
 After many retries, datenodes terminated.  This would leave {{previous.tmp}} and {{current}}
with no {{VERSION}} file in the block pool slice storage directory.  
> Although {{previous.tmp}} contained the old {{VERSION}} file, the content was in the
new layout and the subdirs were all newly created ones.  This shouldn't have happened because
the upgrade-recovery logic in {{Storage}} removes {{current}} and renames {{previous.tmp}}
to {{current}} before retrying.  All successfully upgraded volumes had old state preserved
in their {{previous}} directory.
> In summary there were two observed issues.
> - Upgrade failure with {{link()}} failing with {{EEXIST}}
> - {{previous.tmp}} contained not the content of original {{current}}, but half-upgraded
one.
> We did not see this in smaller scale test clusters.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message