-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20525/#review40950
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/server/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/master/balancer/DefaultLoadBalancer.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/20525/#comment74269>

    Seems like this could get rather spammy. If we have no tservers, we *know* 
that things are already bad, probably don't need to be re-WARN'ed.


- Josh Elser


On April 21, 2014, 6:15 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20525/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 21, 2014, 6:15 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for accumulo, Eric Newton and Mike Drob.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ACCUMULO-2694
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2694
> 
> 
> Repository: accumulo
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> ACCUMULO-2694 Fix handling of tablet migrations for offline tables.
>     
>     * Adds a funtional test that fails due to not rebalancing
>     * Fix master to clear migrations when it learns that a table has gone 
> offline
>     * Update master to periodically clean up migrations for offline tables
>     * Fix balancers to make sure they log if they can't balance.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/server/pom.xml dbe4fb4 
>   src/server/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/master/Master.java 
> fb7be51 
>   
> src/server/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/master/balancer/ChaoticLoadBalancer.java
>  02a4e89 
>   
> src/server/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/master/balancer/DefaultLoadBalancer.java
>  4826097 
>   
> src/server/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/master/balancer/TabletBalancer.java
>  ad62360 
>   test/system/auto/stress/migrations.py d07d7a8 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20525/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ran functional test without other changes -> failed. After full patch 
> functional test passes.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sean Busbey
> 
>

Reply via email to