From hdfs-issues-return-228244-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hadoop.apache.org Fri Aug 3 21:58:05 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id C78DF18067B for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:58:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 35923 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2018 19:58:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact hdfs-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list hdfs-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 35907 invoked by uid 99); 3 Aug 2018 19:58:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Aug 2018 19:58:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 752CFC1D51 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:58:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.501 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffqLPcnmg4L0 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id B99315F416 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2C0F5E2637 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 6952B23FA1 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:58:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Plamen Jeliazkov (JIRA)" To: hdfs-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (HDFS-13767) Add msync server implementation. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13767?page=3Dcom.atlassian= .jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D1656= 8674#comment-16568674 ]=20 Plamen Jeliazkov edited comment on HDFS-13767 at 8/3/18 7:57 PM: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Chen, Change looks pretty good so far; couple things. (1) I like the idea of splitting AlignmentContext into client and server in= terfaces. I think originally Konstantin wanted just a single interface but = I think its clear there is a difference. I would not mind picking up that J= IRA if we want to go ahead with it. This would let us allow the server-side= version of AlignmentContext to better handle defering / re-queue'ing calls= . (2) A concern about the unit test -- I tried to add a 10 second sleep betwe= en the thread start and the assert: {code:java} assertFalse(readSucceed.get()); {code} However I found that the test would fail if I did. Which makes me question = the unit test. I would expect the 'getFileStatus' to basically hang until the _rollEditLog= AndTail_ call but seems it is updating anyway. I tried also stopping the _EditLogTailer_ on the ObserverNode but it still = updated anyway. Please let me know if I am missing something about this test; I will look f= urther. (3) So far these patches don't actually implement _NameNodeRpcServer.msync(= )_. Should we rename it? (4) [~xkrogen], [~shv], and others -- I was curious about making msync paus= e at the server level. What if we had msync hang at the client side instead= ? This way we aren't impacting Observer queues with many deferred calls. We= could simply have the client check up with the Observers' states and so ra= ther than re-queue'ing we throw a StandbyException (or something) and force= the client to maybe pause and retry the msync call on the same or a differ= ent Observer. If the msync call succeeds then we know we can use the partic= ular Observer that it succeeded on. Thoughts? was (Author: zero45): Hey Chen, Change looks pretty good so far; couple things. (1) I like the idea of splitting AlignmentContext into client and server in= terfaces. I think originally Konstantin wanted just a single interface but = I think its clear there is a difference. I would not mind picking up that J= IRA if we want to go ahead with it. This would let us allow the server-side= version of AlignmentContext to better handle defering / re-queue'ing calls= . (2) A concern about the unit test -- I tried to add a 10 second sleep betwe= en the thread start and the assert: {code:java} assertFalse(readSucceed.get()); {code} However I found that the test would fail if I did. Which makes me question = the unit test. I would expect the 'getFileStatus' to basically hang until the _rollEditLog= AndTail_ call but seems it is updating anyway. I tried also stopping the _EditLogTailer_ on the ObserverNode but it still = updated anyway. Please let me know if I am missing something about this test; I will look f= urther. (3) So far these patches don't actually implement _NameNodeRpcServer.msync(= )_. Should we rename it? (4) [~xkrogen], [~shv], and others -- I was curios about making msync pause= at the server level. What if we had msync hang at the client side instead?= This way we aren't impacting Observer queues with many deferred calls. We = could simply have the client check up with the Observers' states and so rat= her than re-queue'ing we throw a StandbyException (or something) and force = the client to maybe pause and retry the msync call on the same or a differe= nt Observer. If the msync call succeeds then we know we can use the particu= lar Observer that it succeeded on. Thoughts? > Add msync server implementation. > -------------------------------- > > Key: HDFS-13767 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13767 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: namenode > Reporter: Chen Liang > Assignee: Chen Liang > Priority: Major > Attachments: HDFS-13767-HDFS-12943.001.patch, HDFS-13767-HDFS-129= 43.002.patch, HDFS-13767.WIP.001.patch, HDFS-13767.WIP.002.patch, HDFS-1376= 7.WIP.003.patch, HDFS-13767.WIP.004.patch > > > This is a followup on HDFS-13688, where msync API is introduced to {{Clie= ntProtocol}} but the server side implementation is missing.=C2=A0This is Ji= ra is to implement the server side logic. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org