hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Enis Soztutar (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-14368) New TestWALLockup broken by addendum added to parent issue
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:22:11 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14368?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15023695#comment-15023695
] 

Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-14368:
---------------------------------------

[~saint.ack@gmail.com] we need this in 1.1 as well, no? The parent backport went into 1.1,
and I got a timeout in a 1.1 based codebase. 
[~ndimiduk] FYI. 

> New TestWALLockup broken by addendum added to parent issue
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14368
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14368
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: test
>            Reporter: stack
>            Assignee: stack
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>         Attachments: 14368.txt, 14368.txt
>
>
> My second addendum broke TestWALLockup, the one that did this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14317?focusedCommentId=14730301&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14730301
> {code}
> diff --git a/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/wal/FSHLog.java
b/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/wal/FSHLog.java
> index 5708c30..c421f5c 100644
> --- a/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/wal/FSHLog.java
> +++ b/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/wal/FSHLog.java
> @@ -878,8 +878,19 @@ public class FSHLog implements WAL {
>          // Let the writer thread go regardless, whether error or not.
>          if (zigzagLatch != null) {
>            zigzagLatch.releaseSafePoint();
> -          // It will be null if we failed our wait on safe point above.
> -          if (syncFuture != null) blockOnSync(syncFuture);
> +          // syncFuture will be null if we failed our wait on safe point above. Otherwise,
if
> +          // latch was obtained successfully, the sync we threw in either trigger the
latch or it
> +          // got stamped with an exception because the WAL was damaged and we could
not sync. Now
> +          // the write pipeline has been opened up again by releasing the safe point,
process the
> +          // syncFuture we got above. This is probably a noop but it may be stale exception
from
> +          // when old WAL was in place. Catch it if so.
> +          if (syncFuture != null) {
> +            try {
> +              blockOnSync(syncFuture);
> +            } catch (IOException ioe) {
> +              if (LOG.isTraceEnabled()) LOG.trace("Stale sync exception", ioe);
> +            }
> +          }
> {code}
> It broke the test because the test hand feeds appends and syncs with when they should
throw exceptions. In the test we manufactured the case where an append fails and we then asserted
the following sync would fail.
> Problem was that we expected the failure to be a dropped snapshot failure because fail
of sync is a catastrophic event... but our hand feeding actually reproduced the case where
a sync goes into the damaged file... before it had rolled... which is no longer a catastrophic
event... we just catch and move on.
> The attached patch just removes check for dropped snapshot and that abort was called.



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

Mime
View raw message