[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6094?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13934472#comment-13934472
 ] 

Jing Zhao commented on HDFS-6094:
---------------------------------

Maybe another issue with the current code is that when an incremental block 
report comes before the full block report, if the stored block state is 
COMMITTED, we may increase the safemode total block number while not increase 
the safe block count. In that case I'm not sure if the NN can get stuck in the 
safemode.

> The same block can be counted twice towards safe mode threshold
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-6094
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6094
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: namenode
>    Affects Versions: 2.4.0
>            Reporter: Arpit Agarwal
>            Assignee: Arpit Agarwal
>         Attachments: TestHASafeMode-output.txt
>
>
> {{BlockManager#addStoredBlock}} can cause the same block can be counted 
> towards safe mode threshold. We see this manifest via 
> {{TestHASafeMode#testBlocksAddedWhileStandbyIsDown}} failures on Ubuntu. More 
> details to follow in a comment.
> Exception details:
> {code}
>   Time elapsed: 12.874 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> java.lang.AssertionError: Bad safemode status: 'Safe mode is ON. The reported 
> blocks 7 has reached the threshold 0.9990 of total blocks 6. The number of 
> live datanodes 3 has reached the minimum number 0. Safe mode will be turned 
> off automatically in 28 seconds.'
>         at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:93)
>         at org.junit.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:43)
>         at 
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestHASafeMode.assertSafeMode(TestHASafeMode.java:493)
>         at 
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestHASafeMode.testBlocksAddedWhileStandbyIsDown(TestHASafeMode.java:660)
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to