-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/57147/#review167547
-----------------------------------------------------------




ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/HDFS/2.1.0.2.0/metainfo.xml
Lines 64 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57147/#comment239425>

    I'm still opposed to this patch fundamentally because no command should be 
able to run for 2 hours. That will block other commands on the client that 
decided to run it, which is extremely problematic.
    
    Please make this call return right away and check the existence of the 
/system/balancer.id file


- Alejandro Fernandez


On Feb. 28, 2017, 6:01 p.m., Laszlo Puskas wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/57147/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 28, 2017, 6:01 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Alejandro Fernandez, Robert Levas, Sandor Magyari, 
> and Sebastian Toader.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-20175
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-20175
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> HDFS rebalance operation can last for a long time (hours/days) thus when 
> triggered from the UI the command may be timed out by the Ambari server.
> This behavior may confuse users, making them to trigger the rebalancer again 
> which will fail with "another balancer is running"  error.
> 
> The patch provides support for setting a reasonably long timeout for the 
> rebalance custo action so that Ambari server doesnt time out the command.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/AmbariCustomCommandExecutionHelper.java
>  867ebff 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/HDFS/2.1.0.2.0/metainfo.xml 
> fd7f2f6 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57147/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Unit tests OK.
> Manually tested on local dev-env.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Laszlo Puskas
> 
>

Reply via email to