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-8872) Reporting of missing blocks is different in fsck and namenode ui/metasave
Date Fri, 22 Apr 2016 04:23:12 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15253325#comment-15253325
] 

Haohui Mai commented on HDFS-8872:
----------------------------------

I think it is a good to call it either way, just need to make sure things are consistent :-)

> Reporting of missing blocks is different in fsck and namenode ui/metasave
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-8872
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8872
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.6.0
>            Reporter: Rushabh S Shah
>            Assignee: Rushabh S Shah
>
> Namenode ui and metasave will not report a block as missing if the only replica is on
decommissioning/decomissioned node while fsck will show it as MISSING.
> Since decommissioned node can be formatted/removed anytime, we can actually lose the
block.
> Its better to alert on namenode ui if the only copy is on decomissioned/decommissioning
node.



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

Mime
View raw message