[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4366?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13561128#comment-13561128
 ] 

Eli Collins commented on HDFS-4366:
-----------------------------------

Nice change Derek. This implementation is a much better implementation.

- LightWeightLinkedSet#clear should reset the bookmark (via resetBookmark) 
- The chooseUnderReplicatedBlocks comment "Replication index will be tracked 
for each priority list separately in priorityToReplIdx map" should be updated 
per the new implementation. Ditto for "reset all priorities replication index 
to 0" farther down.
- A one-line comment by {{neededReplicationsIterator.setToBookmark()}} to the 
effect of "Advance each iterator to the next unprocessed block at its priority 
level" would help
- Perhaps in another jira, can you add a test to TestUnderReplicatedBlocks or 
TestUnderReplicatedBlockQueues that covers the case that you saw (triggered by 
decommissioning a rack)
                
> Block Replication Policy Implementation May Skip Higher-Priority Blocks for 
> Lower-Priority Blocks
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-4366
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4366
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 0.23.5
>            Reporter: Derek Dagit
>            Assignee: Derek Dagit
>         Attachments: HDFS-4366.patch, HDFS-4366.patch, HDFS-4366.patch, 
> hdfs-4366-unittest.patch
>
>
> In certain cases, higher-priority under-replicated blocks can be skipped by 
> the replication policy implementation.  The current implementation maintains, 
> for each priority level, an index into a list of blocks that are 
> under-replicated.  Together, the lists compose a priority queue (see note 
> later about branch-0.23).  In some cases when blocks are removed from a list, 
> the caller (BlockManager) properly handles the index into the list from which 
> it removed a block.  In some other cases, the index remains stationary while 
> the list changes.  Whenever this happens, and the removed block happened to 
> be at or before the index, the implementation will skip over a block when 
> selecting blocks for replication work.
> In situations when entire racks are decommissioned, leading to many 
> under-replicated blocks, loss of blocks can occur.
> Background: HDFS-1765
> This patch to trunk greatly improved the state of the replication policy 
> implementation.  Prior to the patch, the following details were true:
>       * The block "priority queue" was no such thing: It was really set of 
> trees that held blocks in natural ordering, that being by the blocks ID, 
> which resulted in iterator walks over the blocks in pseudo-random order.
>       * There was only a single index into an iteration over all of the 
> blocks...
>       * ... meaning the implementation was only successful in respecting 
> priority levels on the first pass.  Overall, the behavior was a 
> round-robin-type scheduling of blocks.
> After the patch
>       * A proper priority queue is implemented, preserving log n operations 
> while iterating over blocks in the order added.
>       * A separate index for each priority is key is kept...
>       * ... allowing for processing of the highest priority blocks first 
> regardless of which priority had last been processed.
> The change was suggested for branch-0.23 as well as trunk, but it does not 
> appear to have been pulled in.
> The problem:
> Although the indices are now tracked in a better way, there is a 
> synchronization issue since the indices are managed outside of methods to 
> modify the contents of the queue.
> Removal of a block from a priority level without adjusting the index can mean 
> that the index then points to the block after the block it originally pointed 
> to.  In the next round of scheduling for that priority level, the block 
> originally pointed to by the index is skipped.

--
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

Reply via email to