[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13831?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Ted Yu updated HBASE-13831:
---------------------------
      Resolution: Fixed
    Hadoop Flags: Reviewed
          Status: Resolved  (was: Patch Available)

TestHBaseFsck passed in QA run.

Thanks for the patch, Stephen.

> TestHBaseFsck#testParallelHbck is flaky against hadoop 2.6+
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-13831
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13831
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: hbck, test
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.1.0, 1.2.0
>            Reporter: Stephen Yuan Jiang
>            Assignee: Stephen Yuan Jiang
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.2.0, 1.1.1
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-13831.patch
>
>
> Running TestHBaseFsck#testParallelHbck is flaky against HADOOP-2.6+ 
> environment.  The idea of the test is that with when 2 HBCK operations are 
> running simultaneously, the 2nd HBCK would fail with no-retry because 
> creating lock file would fail due to the 1st HBCK already created.  However, 
> with HADOOP-2.6+, the FileSystem#createFile call internally retries with 
> AlreadyBeingCreatedException (see HBASE-13574 for more details: "It seems 
> that test is broken due of the new create retry policy in hadoop 2.6. 
> Namenode proxy now created with custom RetryPolicy for 
> AlreadyBeingCreatedException which is implies timeout on this operations up 
> to HdfsConstants.LEASE_SOFTLIMIT_PERIOD (60seconds).")
> When I run the TestHBaseFsck#testParallelHbck test against HADOOP-2.7 in a 
> Windows environment (HBASE is branch-1.1) multiple times, the result is 
> unpredictable (sometime succeeded, sometime failed - more failure than 
> succeeded).  
> The fix is trivial: Leverage the change in HBASE-13732 and reduce the max 
> wait time to a smaller number.   



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to