Github user lianhuiwang commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/6990#discussion_r33413900
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/storage/BlockManager.scala
---
@@ -833,8 +833,10 @@ private[spark] class BlockManager(
logDebug("Put block %s locally took %s".format(blockId,
Utils.getUsedTimeMs(startTimeMs)))
// Either we're storing bytes and we asynchronously started
replication, or we're storing
- // values and need to serialize and replicate them now:
- if (putLevel.replication > 1) {
+ // values and need to serialize and replicate them now.
+ // Should not replicate the block if its StorageLevel is
StorageLevel.NONE or
+ // putting it to local is failed.
+ if (!putBlockInfo.isFailed && putLevel.replication > 1) {
--- End diff --
i think @squito said is correct. now the problem is when block is failed in
local and replication factor needs 2, but now how we choose to deal with this
situation, there are three ways:
one is making replication factor to 1 and continue to replication to remote
node.
two is stop to replication to remote node and its replication factor is 0.
three is continuing to replication to two remote node and its replication
factor is 2.
so i think the three maybe a good solution. how about your opinions?
@andrewor14 @squito
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
