I looked at the merge. It looks good. +1. On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> The branch developed some new conflicts due to recent changes in trunk > affecting the RPC between the DN and the NN (the "StorageReport" > stuff). I've done a new merge to address these conflicts here: > > https://github.com/toddlipcon/hadoop-common/tree/ha-merge-20120208 > > I've also addressed Aaron's comments in the thread above. > I ran the unit tests on the branch and they passed. > > Thanks > -Todd > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Aaron T. Myers <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Hey Todd, > > > > The merge largely looks good. I agree with the general approach you > took. A > > few small comments: > > > > 1. There's a comment in the OP_ADD case blockabout handling OP_CLOSE. > This > > makes sense in 0.22/0.23/0.24, but in the HA branch the OP_ADD and > OP_CLOSE > > cases are completely separate case blocks. I actually find this whole > > comment a little confusing, since it numbers the cases we have to handle, > > but those numbers aren't referenced anywhere else. > > > > 2. You mentioned in your message that you don't handle the (invalid) case > > of OP_ADD on a new file containing updated blocks, but it looks like the > > code actually does, though the code also mentions that we should add a > > sanity check that this is actually can't occur. Seems like we should > clean > > up this inconsistency. I agree that adding asserting this case doesn't > > occur is the right way to go. > > > > 3. If we go with my suggestion in (2), we can also move the call to > > FSEditLogLoader#updateBlocks to only the case of OP_ADD for an existing > > file, and then get rid of the "INodeFile newFile = oldFile" assignment, > > which I found kind of confusing at first. (Though I do see why it's > correct > > as-implemented.) If you don't go with my suggestion in (2), please add a > > comment explaining the assignment. > > > > Otherwise looks good. Merge away. > > > > -- > > Aaron T. Myers > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > >> I've got a merge pending of trunk into HDFS-1623 -- it was a bit > >> complicated so wanted to ask for another set of eyes: > >> https://github.com/toddlipcon/hadoop-common/tree/ha-merge-20120203 > >> (using github since it's hard to review a merge patch via JIRA) > >> > >> The interesting bit of the merge was to deal with conflicts with > >> HDFS-2718. To summarize the changes I had to make: > >> - in the HDFS-1623 branch, we don't deal with the case where OP_ADD > >> contains blocks on a new file -- this is a case that doesn't happen on > >> real clusters, but currently happens with synthetic logs generated > >> from the CreateEditLogs tool. I added a TODO to add a sanity check > >> here and will address as a follow-up. Given the difference between > >> trunk and branch, there were a couple of small changes that propagated > >> into unprotectedAddFile > >> - In the HDFS-1623 branch we had already implemented the > >> "updateBlocks" call inside FSEditLogLoader. I used that existing > >> implementation rather than adding the new one in FSDirectory, since > >> this function had some other changes related to HA in the branch > >> version. > >> > >> I'll wait for a +1 before committing. I ran all of the unit tests and > >> they passed. > >> > >> -Todd > >> -- > >> Todd Lipcon > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
