[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4462?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13662278#comment-13662278
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-4462:
----------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12583869/unittest_that_shows_us_retrying_sockettimeout.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:green}+1 javadoc{color}. The javadoc tool did not generate any
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:
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestClientNoCluster
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-prefix-tree.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-client.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-common.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-protocol.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-server.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop1-compat.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-examples.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop-compat.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/5756//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Properly treating SocketTimeoutException
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-4462
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4462
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.90.4
> Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans
> Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
> Fix For: 0.90.8
>
> Attachments: HBASE-4462_0.90.x.patch,
> unittest_that_shows_us_retrying_sockettimeout.txt
>
>
> SocketTimeoutException is currently treated like any IOE inside of
> HCM.getRegionServerWithRetries and I think this is a problem. This method
> should only do retries in cases where we are pretty sure the operation will
> complete, but with STE we already waited for (by default) 60 seconds and
> nothing happened.
> I found this while debugging Douglas Campbell's problem on the mailing list
> where it seemed like he was using the same scanner from multiple threads, but
> actually it was just the same client doing retries while the first run didn't
> even finish yet (that's another problem). You could see the first scanner,
> then up to two other handlers waiting for it to finish in order to run
> (because of the synchronization on RegionScanner).
> So what should we do? We could treat STE as a DoNotRetryException and let the
> client deal with it, or we could retry only once.
> There's also the option of having a different behavior for get/put/icv/scan,
> the issue with operations that modify a cell is that you don't know if the
> operation completed or not (same when a RS dies hard after completing let's
> say a Put but just before returning to the client).
--
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
