[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9158?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13734197#comment-13734197
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-9158:
----------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12596946/9158-trunk-v4.txt
against trunk revision .
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:green}+1 tests included{color}. The patch appears to include 3 new
or modified tests.
{color:green}+1 hadoop1.0{color}. The patch compiles against the hadoop
1.0 profile.
{color:green}+1 hadoop2.0{color}. The patch compiles against the hadoop
2.0 profile.
{color:red}-1 javadoc{color}. The javadoc tool appears to have generated
18 warning messages.
{color:green}+1 javac{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of javac compiler warnings.
{color:green}+1 findbugs{color}. The patch does not introduce any new
Findbugs (version 1.3.9) warnings.
{color:green}+1 release audit{color}. The applied patch does not increase
the total number of release audit warnings.
{color:green}+1 lineLengths{color}. The patch does not introduce lines
longer than 100
{color:green}+1 site{color}. The mvn site goal succeeds with this patch.
{color:red}-1 core tests{color}. The patch failed these unit tests:
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-protocol.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-client.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-examples.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop1-compat.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-prefix-tree.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-common.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-server.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop-compat.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6662//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Serious bug in cyclic replication
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-9158
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9158
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.98.0, 0.95.1, 0.94.10
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Assignee: Lars Hofhansl
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.95.2, 0.94.11
>
> Attachments: 9158-0.94.txt, 9158-0.94-v2.txt, 9158-0.94-v3.txt,
> 9158-0.94-v4.txt, 9158-trunk-v1.txt, 9158-trunk-v2.txt, 9158-trunk-v3.txt,
> 9158-trunk-v4.txt
>
>
> While studying the code for HBASE-7709, I found a serious bug in the current
> cyclic replication code. The problem is here in HRegion.doMiniBatchMutation:
> {code}
> Mutation first = batchOp.operations[firstIndex].getFirst();
> txid = this.log.appendNoSync(regionInfo,
> this.htableDescriptor.getName(),
> walEdit, first.getClusterId(), now, this.htableDescriptor);
> {code}
> Now note that edits replicated from remote cluster and local edits might
> interleave in the WAL, we might also receive edit from multiple remote
> clusters. Hence that <walEdit> might have edits from many clusters in it, but
> all are just labeled with the clusterId of the first Mutation.
> Fixing this in doMiniBatchMutation seems tricky to do efficiently (imagine we
> get a batch with cluster1, cluster2, cluster1, cluster2, ..., in that case
> each edit would have to be its own batch). The coprocessor handling would
> also be difficult.
> The other option is create batches of Puts grouped by the cluster id in
> ReplicationSink.replicateEntries(...), this is not as general, but equally
> correct. This is the approach I would favor.
> Lastly this is very hard to verify in a unittest.
--
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
