hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vinayakumar B (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HDFS-8164) cTime is 0 in VERSION file for newly formatted NameNode.
Date Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:05:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8164?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14943097#comment-14943097
] 

Vinayakumar B commented on HDFS-8164:
-------------------------------------

Thanks [~xiaochen], patch looks good overall. 
Have few comments
1. {{FSN#getCTime()}} is used only in test added. So it would be better to annotate as @VisibleForTesting.

2. In Test, {{NameNode.format(conf);}}, I think this call is unnecessary.
3. {code}final long millsOneDay = 1000 * 60 * 60 * 24;
assertTrue(ctime <  pre + millsOneDay);{code}
This also I feel unnecessary. Is it really required to verify cTime is within a day. ? 

> cTime is 0 in VERSION file for newly formatted NameNode.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-8164
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8164
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: namenode
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.3-alpha
>            Reporter: Chris Nauroth
>            Assignee: Xiao Chen
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: HDFS-8164.001.patch, HDFS-8164.002.patch, HDFS-8164.003.patch, HDFS-8164.004.patch
>
>
> After formatting a NameNode and inspecting its VERSION file, the cTime property shows
0.  The value does get updated to current time during an upgrade, but I believe this is intended
to be the creation time of the cluster, and therefore the initial value of 0 before an upgrade
can cause confusion.



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

Mime
View raw message