[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13853096#comment-13853096
]
Eric Sirianni commented on HDFS-5667:
-------------------------------------
I applied the patch to my environment and can confirm the fix works as intended
- tests that were previously failing due to this defect are now passing with
the fix applied.
Also, thanks for enhancing the {{MiniDFSCluster}} test infrastructure as we
discussed on HDFS-5484.
> Include DatanodeStorage in StorageReport
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-5667
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5667
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: datanode
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0
> Reporter: Eric Sirianni
> Assignee: Arpit Agarwal
> Fix For: 3.0.0
>
> Attachments: h5667.02.patch, h5667.03.patch, h5667.04.patch
>
>
> The fix for HDFS-5484 was accidentally regressed by the following change made
> via HDFS-5542
> {code}
> + DatanodeStorageInfo updateStorage(DatanodeStorage s) {
> synchronized (storageMap) {
> DatanodeStorageInfo storage = storageMap.get(s.getStorageID());
> if (storage == null) {
> @@ -670,8 +658,6 @@
> " for DN " + getXferAddr());
> storage = new DatanodeStorageInfo(this, s);
> storageMap.put(s.getStorageID(), storage);
> - } else {
> - storage.setState(s.getState());
> }
> return storage;
> }
> {code}
> By removing the 'else' and no longer updating the state in the BlockReport
> processing path, we effectively get the bogus state & type that is set via
> the first heartbeat (see the fix for HDFS-5455):
> {code}
> + if (storage == null) {
> + // This is seen during cluster initialization when the heartbeat
> + // is received before the initial block reports from each storage.
> + storage = updateStorage(new DatanodeStorage(report.getStorageID()));
> {code}
> Even reverting the change and reintroducing the 'else' leaves the state &
> type temporarily inaccurate until the first block report.
> As discussed with [~arpitagarwal], a better fix would be to simply include
> the full {{DatanodeStorage}} object in the {{StorageReport}} (as opposed to
> only the Storage ID). This requires adding the {{DatanodeStorage}} object to
> {{StorageReportProto}}. It needs to be a new optional field and we cannot
> remove the existing {{StorageUuid}} for protocol compatibility.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.4#6159)
