[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5270?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13222252#comment-13222252
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-5270:
----------------------------------

-1 overall.  Here are the results of testing the latest attachment 
  http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12517050/hbase-5270v10.patch
  against trunk revision .

    +1 @author.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.

    +1 tests included.  The patch appears to include 9 new or modified tests.

    -1 javadoc.  The javadoc tool appears to have generated -129 warning 
messages.

    +1 javac.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac 
compiler warnings.

    -1 findbugs.  The patch appears to introduce 155 new Findbugs (version 
1.3.9) warnings.

    +1 release audit.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of 
release audit warnings.

    +1 core tests.  The patch passed unit tests in .

Test results: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/1100//testReport/
Findbugs warnings: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/1100//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Console output: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/1100//console

This message is automatically generated.
                
> Handle potential data loss due to concurrent processing of processFaileOver 
> and ServerShutdownHandler
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-5270
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5270
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: master
>            Reporter: Zhihong Yu
>            Assignee: chunhui shen
>             Fix For: 0.92.2
>
>         Attachments: 5270-90-testcase.patch, 5270-90-testcasev2.patch, 
> 5270-90.patch, 5270-90v2.patch, 5270-90v3.patch, 5270-testcase.patch, 
> 5270-testcasev2.patch, hbase-5270.patch, hbase-5270v10.patch, 
> hbase-5270v2.patch, hbase-5270v4.patch, hbase-5270v5.patch, 
> hbase-5270v6.patch, hbase-5270v7.patch, hbase-5270v8.patch, 
> hbase-5270v9.patch, sampletest.txt
>
>
> This JIRA continues the effort from HBASE-5179. Starting with Stack's 
> comments about patches for 0.92 and TRUNK:
> Reviewing 0.92v17
> isDeadServerInProgress is a new public method in ServerManager but it does 
> not seem to be used anywhere.
> Does isDeadRootServerInProgress need to be public? Ditto for meta version.
> This method param names are not right 'definitiveRootServer'; what is meant 
> by definitive? Do they need this qualifier?
> Is there anything in place to stop us expiring a server twice if its carrying 
> root and meta?
> What is difference between asking assignment manager isCarryingRoot and this 
> variable that is passed in? Should be doc'd at least. Ditto for meta.
> I think I've asked for this a few times - onlineServers needs to be 
> explained... either in javadoc or in comment. This is the param passed into 
> joinCluster. How does it arise? I think I know but am unsure. God love the 
> poor noob that comes awandering this code trying to make sense of it all.
> It looks like we get the list by trawling zk for regionserver znodes that 
> have not checked in. Don't we do this operation earlier in master setup? Are 
> we doing it again here?
> Though distributed split log is configured, we will do in master single 
> process splitting under some conditions with this patch. Its not explained in 
> code why we would do this. Why do we think master log splitting 'high 
> priority' when it could very well be slower. Should we only go this route if 
> distributed splitting is not going on. Do we know if concurrent distributed 
> log splitting and master splitting works?
> Why would we have dead servers in progress here in master startup? Because a 
> servershutdownhandler fired?
> This patch is different to the patch for 0.90. Should go into trunk first 
> with tests, then 0.92. Should it be in this issue? This issue is really hard 
> to follow now. Maybe this issue is for 0.90.x and new issue for more work on 
> this trunk patch?
> This patch needs to have the v18 differences applied.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Reply via email to