[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13375?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14394319#comment-14394319
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-13375:
-----------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12709201/HBASE-13375-v0.patch
against master branch at commit d8b10656d00779e194c3caca118995136babce99.
ATTACHMENT ID: 12709201
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:green}+1 tests included{color}. The patch appears to include 12 new
or modified tests.
{color:green}+1 hadoop versions{color}. The patch compiles with all
supported hadoop versions (2.4.1 2.5.2 2.6.0)
{color:green}+1 javac{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of javac compiler warnings.
{color:green}+1 protoc{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of protoc compiler warnings.
{color:green}+1 javadoc{color}. The javadoc tool did not generate any
warning messages.
{color:green}+1 checkstyle{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of checkstyle errors
{color:green}+1 findbugs{color}. The patch does not introduce any new
Findbugs (version 2.0.3) 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:
{color:red}-1 core zombie tests{color}. There are 2 zombie test(s):
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testRegionDeployedNotInHdfs(TestHBaseFsck.java:1876)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testValidLingeringSplitParent(TestHBaseFsck.java:1764)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testLingeringSplitParent(TestHBaseFsck.java:1651)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testHbckWithExcessReplica(TestHBaseFsck.java:780)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testQuarantineCorruptHFile(TestHBaseFsck.java:2158)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testQuarantineMissingHFile(TestHBaseFsck.java:2226)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testFixHdfsHolesNotWorkingWithNoHdfsChecking(TestHBaseFsck.java:2088)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestHBaseFsck.testHBaseFsckClean(TestHBaseFsck.java:491)
at
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestAdmin2.testCreateBadTables(TestAdmin2.java:152)
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13550//testReport/
Release Findbugs (version 2.0.3) warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13550//artifact/patchprocess/newFindbugsWarnings.html
Checkstyle Errors:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13550//artifact/patchprocess/checkstyle-aggregate.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/13550//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Provide HBase superuser higher priority over other users in the RPC handling
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-13375
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13375
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: rpc
> Reporter: Devaraj Das
> Assignee: Mikhail Antonov
> Fix For: 1.1.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-13375-v0.patch
>
>
> HBASE-13351 annotates Master RPCs so that RegionServer RPCs are treated with
> a higher priority compared to user RPCs (and they are handled by a separate
> set of handlers, etc.). It may be good to stretch this to users too - hbase
> superuser (configured via hbase.superuser) gets higher priority over other
> users in the RPC handling. That way the superuser can always perform
> administrative operations on the cluster even if all the normal priority
> handlers are occupied (for example, we had a situation where all the master's
> handlers were tied up with many simultaneous createTable RPC calls from
> multiple users and the master wasn't able to perform any operations initiated
> by the admin). (Discussed this some with [~enis] and [~elserj]).
> Does this make sense to others?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
