[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3979?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13494379#comment-13494379
]
Luke Lu commented on HDFS-3979:
-------------------------------
bq. So the test you're looking for is starting 3 DNs, and then have the write
permanently fail at any of them, and in all cases have the hsync fail on the
client, right?
Yes, that should provide basic coverage for the failure cases.
> Fix hsync semantics
> -------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-3979
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3979
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: data-node
> Affects Versions: 2.0.2-alpha
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Assignee: Lars Hofhansl
> Fix For: 2.0.3-alpha
>
> Attachments: hdfs-3979-sketch.txt, hdfs-3979-v2.txt,
> hdfs-3979-v3.txt, hdfs-3979-v4.txt
>
>
> See discussion in HDFS-744. The actual sync/flush operation in BlockReceiver
> is not on a synchronous path from the DFSClient, hence it is possible that a
> DN loses data that it has already acknowledged as persisted to a client.
> Edit: Spelling.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
