hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rushabh S Shah (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HDFS-8872) Reporting of missing blocks is different in fsck and namenode ui/metasave
Date Mon, 23 May 2016 20:46:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15297054#comment-15297054

Rushabh S Shah commented on HDFS-8872:

bq. Actually after HDFS-7933, fsck includes decommissioning nodes and won't mark it as missing
It includes the decommissioned nodes also.
See the code below.
  int totalReplicas = liveReplicas + decommissionedReplicas +
 if (totalReplicas == 0) {
        report.append(" MISSING!");
        res.addMissing(block.toString(), block.getNumBytes());
        missize += block.getNumBytes();

> 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
> Its better to alert on namenode ui if the only copy is on decomissioned/decommissioning

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org

View raw message