From hdfs-issues-return-238602-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hadoop.apache.org Wed Oct 17 01:01:04 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 DD9C4180649 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 01:01:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 32452 invoked by uid 500); 16 Oct 2018 23:01:02 -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 32441 invoked by uid 99); 16 Oct 2018 23:01:02 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:01:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 4910ECABBC for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:01:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-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 (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZuCv1_j51_5t for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:01:01 +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 8F12D5F205 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:01:01 +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 D6998E2613 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:01:00 +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 63F4B24DF5 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:01:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Wei-Chiu Chuang (JIRA)" To: hdfs-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HDFS-8533) Mismatch in displaying the "MissingBlock" count in fsck and in other metric reports MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16652609#comment-16652609 ] Wei-Chiu Chuang commented on HDFS-8533: --------------------------------------- I'm pretty sure I found the root cause of this bug: HDFS-13999. There's a corner case where we don't decrement the corrupt block counter (but the block is actually good) > Mismatch in displaying the "MissingBlock" count in fsck and in other metric reports > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HDFS-8533 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8533 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Bug > Affects Versions: 2.7.0 > Reporter: J.Andreina > Assignee: J.Andreina > Priority: Critical > > Number of DN = 2 > Step 1: Write a file with replication factor - 3 . > Step 2: Corrupt a replica in DN1 > Step 3: DN2 is down. > Missing Block count in report is as follows > Fsck report : *0* > Jmx, "dfsadmin -report" , UI, logs : *1* > In fsck , only block whose replicas are all missed and not been corrupted are counted > {code} > if (totalReplicasPerBlock == 0 && !isCorrupt) { > // If the block is corrupted, it means all its available replicas are > // corrupted. We don't mark it as missing given these available replicas > // might still be accessible as the block might be incorrectly marked as > // corrupted by client machines. > {code} > While in other reports even if all the replicas are corrupted , block is been considered as missed. > Please provide your thoughts : can we make missing block count consistent across all the reports same as implemented for fsck? -- 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