[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10999?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15590122#comment-15590122 ]
Andrew Wang commented on HDFS-10999: ------------------------------------ [~jojochuang] thanks for sharing that output. Allen mentioned that fsck is used as both a quick check, as well as a rough measure of how much recovery work is ongoing. Assuming that "Missing internal blocks" goes up when "Under-erasure-coded groups" is non-zero, this seems workable. > Use more generic "low redundancy" blocks instead of "under replicated" blocks > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HDFS-10999 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10999 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: erasure-coding > Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha1 > Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang > Assignee: Yuanbo Liu > Labels: supportability > > Per HDFS-9857, it seems in the Hadoop 3 world, people prefer the more generic > term "low redundancy" to the old-fashioned "under replicated". But this term > is still being used in messages in several places, such as web ui, dfsadmin > and fsck. We should probably change them to avoid confusion. > File this jira to discuss it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org