[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-13687) ConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider could direct requests to SBN
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13687?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514963#comment-16514963
]
Chao Sun commented on HDFS-13687:
-
cc [~shv], [~xkrogen].
> ConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider could direct requests to SBN
>
>
> Key: HDFS-13687
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13687
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Chao Sun
>Assignee: Chao Sun
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-13687.000.patch
>
>
> In case there are multiple SBNs, and {{dfs.ha.allow.stale.reads}} is set to
> true, failover could go to a SBN which then may serve read requests from
> client. This may not be the expected behavior. This issue arises when we are
> working on HDFS-12943 and HDFS-12976.
> A better approach for this could be to check {{HAServiceState}} and find out
> the active NN when performing failover. This also can reduce the # of
> failovers the client has to do in case of multiple SBNs.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-12976) Introduce ObserverReadProxyProvider
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514962#comment-16514962
]
Chao Sun commented on HDFS-12976:
-
[~shv] Yes, I created HDFS-13687 to fix this. Could you take a look?
> Introduce ObserverReadProxyProvider
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-12976
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12976
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: hdfs-client
>Reporter: Konstantin Shvachko
>Assignee: Chao Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.000.patch,
> HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.001.patch, HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.002.patch,
> HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.003.patch, HDFS-12976.WIP.patch
>
>
> {{StandbyReadProxyProvider}} should implement {{FailoverProxyProvider}}
> interface and be able to submit read requests to ANN and SBN(s).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514952#comment-16514952
]
genericqa commented on HDFS-13448:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
40s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
23s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 32m
13s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 42m
57s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
27s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 4m
14s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 7m
3s{color} | {color:red} branch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
26s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
31s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
19s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
32s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 28m
31s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 28m
31s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 28m
31s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
24s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 3m
12s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 2m
14s{color} | {color:red} patch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m
31s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 9m
11s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m
42s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 97m 37s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
45s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}248m 10s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.TestFSDirWriteFileOp |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.TestReencryptionWithKMS |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hadoop:abb62dd |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-13448 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12928093/HDFS-13448.10.patch |
| Optional Tests | asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall mvnsite
unit shadedclient findbugs checkstyle cc |
| uname | Linux 0f64c288afa7 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 27
10:45:36 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514926#comment-16514926
]
genericqa commented on HDFS-13448:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
26s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
19s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 29m
19s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 36m
51s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
24s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 4m
36s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 7m
26s{color} | {color:red} branch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 6m
31s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m
14s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
24s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
24s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 38m
25s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 38m
25s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 38m
25s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
30s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 4m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 2m
35s{color} | {color:red} patch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 7m
31s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m
12s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 9m 35s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-common in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m
44s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-hdfs-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}102m 6s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 0m
45s{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 1 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}261m 58s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.security.TestGroupsCaching |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.TestFSDirWriteFileOp |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.balancer.TestBalancer |
| | hadoop.hdfs.client.impl.TestBlockReaderLocal |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hadoop:abb62dd |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-13448 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12928086/HDFS-13448.10.patch |
| Optional Tests | asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall mvnsite
unit shadedclient findbugs checkstyle cc |
| uname | Linux 4b4c3dc0eab0 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-12976) Introduce ObserverReadProxyProvider
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514920#comment-16514920
]
Konstantin Shvachko commented on HDFS-12976:
??{{ConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider}} and received a read request, then the
proxy may forward this request to a observer node, right???
As we talked yesterday, the behavior of {{ConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider}}
should remain unchanged, that is it will talk only to Active NN.
{{ObserverReadProxyProvider}} will be used to read from ObserverNode. The only
new thing for {{ConfiguredFailoverProxyProvider}} is that during fail-over it
should connect to Active NN, and avoid both Standby and Observer nodes. We
should create a new jira to fix this in trunk.
> Introduce ObserverReadProxyProvider
> ---
>
> Key: HDFS-12976
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12976
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: hdfs-client
>Reporter: Konstantin Shvachko
>Assignee: Chao Sun
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.000.patch,
> HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.001.patch, HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.002.patch,
> HDFS-12976-HDFS-12943.003.patch, HDFS-12976.WIP.patch
>
>
> {{StandbyReadProxyProvider}} should implement {{FailoverProxyProvider}}
> interface and be able to submit read requests to ANN and SBN(s).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
BELUGA BEHR updated HDFS-13448:
---
Attachment: HDFS-13448.10.patch
> HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
> --
>
> Key: HDFS-13448
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: block placement, hdfs-client
>Affects Versions: 2.9.0, 3.0.1
>Reporter: BELUGA BEHR
>Assignee: BELUGA BEHR
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-13448.1.patch, HDFS-13448.10.patch,
> HDFS-13448.2.patch, HDFS-13448.3.patch, HDFS-13448.4.patch,
> HDFS-13448.5.patch, HDFS-13448.6.patch, HDFS-13448.7.patch, HDFS-13448.8.patch
>
>
> According to the HDFS Block Place Rules:
> {quote}
> /**
> * The replica placement strategy is that if the writer is on a datanode,
> * the 1st replica is placed on the local machine,
> * otherwise a random datanode. The 2nd replica is placed on a datanode
> * that is on a different rack. The 3rd replica is placed on a datanode
> * which is on a different node of the rack as the second replica.
> */
> {quote}
> However, there is a hint for the hdfs-client that allows the block placement
> request to not put a block replica on the local datanode _where 'local' means
> the same host as the client is being run on._
> {quote}
> /**
>* Advise that a block replica NOT be written to the local DataNode where
>* 'local' means the same host as the client is being run on.
>*
>* @see CreateFlag#NO_LOCAL_WRITE
>*/
> {quote}
> I propose that we add a new flag that allows the hdfs-client to request that
> the first block replica be placed on a random DataNode in the cluster. The
> subsequent block replicas should follow the normal block placement rules.
> The issue is that when the {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled, the first block
> replica is not placed on the local node, but it is still placed on the local
> rack. Where this comes into play is where you have, for example, a flume
> agent that is loading data into HDFS.
> If the Flume agent is running on a DataNode, then by default, the DataNode
> local to the Flume agent will always get the first block replica and this
> leads to un-even block placements, with the local node always filling up
> faster than any other node in the cluster.
> Modifying this example, if the DataNode is removed from the host where the
> Flume agent is running, or this {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled by Flume, then
> the default block placement policy will still prefer the local rack. This
> remedies the situation only so far as now the first block replica will always
> be distributed to a DataNode on the local rack.
> This new flag would allow a single Flume agent to distribute the blocks
> randomly, evenly, over the entire cluster instead of hot-spotting the local
> node or the local rack.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514904#comment-16514904
]
genericqa commented on HDFS-13473:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
26s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 13 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 29m
34s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
4s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
13s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
18s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 3m
25s{color} | {color:red} branch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
0s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
47s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
5s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m
55s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 0m
55s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m
55s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
9s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
3s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 1m
55s{color} | {color:red} patch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 2m
3s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs generated 1 new + 0
unchanged - 0 fixed = 1 total (was 0) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}104m 1s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
29s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}151m 15s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| FindBugs | module:hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs |
| | Unused field:HeartbeatManager.java |
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hdfs.TestEncryptedTransfer |
| | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestFailoverWithBlockTokensEnabled |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hadoop:abb62dd |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-13473 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12928088/HDFS-13473-trunk.004.patch
|
| Optional Tests | asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall mvnsite
unit shadedclient findbugs checkstyle cc |
| uname | Linux 44b3e5af8815 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 27
10:45:36 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality | /testptch/patchprocess/precommit/personality/provided.sh |
| git revision | trunk / 8762e9c |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.3.9 |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_171 |
| findbugs | v3.1.0-RC1 |
| findbugs |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/24464/artifact/out/new-findbugs-hadoop-hdfs-project_hadoop-hdfs.html
|
| unit |
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
BELUGA BEHR updated HDFS-13448:
---
Attachment: (was: HDFS-13448.10.patch)
> HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
> --
>
> Key: HDFS-13448
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: block placement, hdfs-client
>Affects Versions: 2.9.0, 3.0.1
>Reporter: BELUGA BEHR
>Assignee: BELUGA BEHR
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-13448.1.patch, HDFS-13448.2.patch,
> HDFS-13448.3.patch, HDFS-13448.4.patch, HDFS-13448.5.patch,
> HDFS-13448.6.patch, HDFS-13448.7.patch, HDFS-13448.8.patch
>
>
> According to the HDFS Block Place Rules:
> {quote}
> /**
> * The replica placement strategy is that if the writer is on a datanode,
> * the 1st replica is placed on the local machine,
> * otherwise a random datanode. The 2nd replica is placed on a datanode
> * that is on a different rack. The 3rd replica is placed on a datanode
> * which is on a different node of the rack as the second replica.
> */
> {quote}
> However, there is a hint for the hdfs-client that allows the block placement
> request to not put a block replica on the local datanode _where 'local' means
> the same host as the client is being run on._
> {quote}
> /**
>* Advise that a block replica NOT be written to the local DataNode where
>* 'local' means the same host as the client is being run on.
>*
>* @see CreateFlag#NO_LOCAL_WRITE
>*/
> {quote}
> I propose that we add a new flag that allows the hdfs-client to request that
> the first block replica be placed on a random DataNode in the cluster. The
> subsequent block replicas should follow the normal block placement rules.
> The issue is that when the {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled, the first block
> replica is not placed on the local node, but it is still placed on the local
> rack. Where this comes into play is where you have, for example, a flume
> agent that is loading data into HDFS.
> If the Flume agent is running on a DataNode, then by default, the DataNode
> local to the Flume agent will always get the first block replica and this
> leads to un-even block placements, with the local node always filling up
> faster than any other node in the cluster.
> Modifying this example, if the DataNode is removed from the host where the
> Flume agent is running, or this {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled by Flume, then
> the default block placement policy will still prefer the local rack. This
> remedies the situation only so far as now the first block replica will always
> be distributed to a DataNode on the local rack.
> This new flag would allow a single Flume agent to distribute the blocks
> randomly, evenly, over the entire cluster instead of hot-spotting the local
> node or the local rack.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
BELUGA BEHR updated HDFS-13448:
---
Attachment: (was: HDFS-13448.9.patch)
> HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
> --
>
> Key: HDFS-13448
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: block placement, hdfs-client
>Affects Versions: 2.9.0, 3.0.1
>Reporter: BELUGA BEHR
>Assignee: BELUGA BEHR
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-13448.1.patch, HDFS-13448.2.patch,
> HDFS-13448.3.patch, HDFS-13448.4.patch, HDFS-13448.5.patch,
> HDFS-13448.6.patch, HDFS-13448.7.patch, HDFS-13448.8.patch
>
>
> According to the HDFS Block Place Rules:
> {quote}
> /**
> * The replica placement strategy is that if the writer is on a datanode,
> * the 1st replica is placed on the local machine,
> * otherwise a random datanode. The 2nd replica is placed on a datanode
> * that is on a different rack. The 3rd replica is placed on a datanode
> * which is on a different node of the rack as the second replica.
> */
> {quote}
> However, there is a hint for the hdfs-client that allows the block placement
> request to not put a block replica on the local datanode _where 'local' means
> the same host as the client is being run on._
> {quote}
> /**
>* Advise that a block replica NOT be written to the local DataNode where
>* 'local' means the same host as the client is being run on.
>*
>* @see CreateFlag#NO_LOCAL_WRITE
>*/
> {quote}
> I propose that we add a new flag that allows the hdfs-client to request that
> the first block replica be placed on a random DataNode in the cluster. The
> subsequent block replicas should follow the normal block placement rules.
> The issue is that when the {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled, the first block
> replica is not placed on the local node, but it is still placed on the local
> rack. Where this comes into play is where you have, for example, a flume
> agent that is loading data into HDFS.
> If the Flume agent is running on a DataNode, then by default, the DataNode
> local to the Flume agent will always get the first block replica and this
> leads to un-even block placements, with the local node always filling up
> faster than any other node in the cluster.
> Modifying this example, if the DataNode is removed from the host where the
> Flume agent is running, or this {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled by Flume, then
> the default block placement policy will still prefer the local rack. This
> remedies the situation only so far as now the first block replica will always
> be distributed to a DataNode on the local rack.
> This new flag would allow a single Flume agent to distribute the blocks
> randomly, evenly, over the entire cluster instead of hot-spotting the local
> node or the local rack.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
BELUGA BEHR updated HDFS-13448:
---
Status: Patch Available (was: Open)
I'm taking a slightly different tact on the unit tests this time. I have
created a new test suite for the {{FSDirWriteFileOp}} class that tests that
the 'clientNode' passed to the block manager is 'null' when the
{{IGNORE_CLIENT_LOCALITY}} flag is set.
I also added changes for [~templedf] suggestions regarding a comment and to not
put landmine 'null' values into the application flow.
> HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
> --
>
> Key: HDFS-13448
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: block placement, hdfs-client
>Affects Versions: 3.0.1, 2.9.0
>Reporter: BELUGA BEHR
>Assignee: BELUGA BEHR
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-13448.1.patch, HDFS-13448.10.patch,
> HDFS-13448.2.patch, HDFS-13448.3.patch, HDFS-13448.4.patch,
> HDFS-13448.5.patch, HDFS-13448.6.patch, HDFS-13448.7.patch,
> HDFS-13448.8.patch, HDFS-13448.9.patch
>
>
> According to the HDFS Block Place Rules:
> {quote}
> /**
> * The replica placement strategy is that if the writer is on a datanode,
> * the 1st replica is placed on the local machine,
> * otherwise a random datanode. The 2nd replica is placed on a datanode
> * that is on a different rack. The 3rd replica is placed on a datanode
> * which is on a different node of the rack as the second replica.
> */
> {quote}
> However, there is a hint for the hdfs-client that allows the block placement
> request to not put a block replica on the local datanode _where 'local' means
> the same host as the client is being run on._
> {quote}
> /**
>* Advise that a block replica NOT be written to the local DataNode where
>* 'local' means the same host as the client is being run on.
>*
>* @see CreateFlag#NO_LOCAL_WRITE
>*/
> {quote}
> I propose that we add a new flag that allows the hdfs-client to request that
> the first block replica be placed on a random DataNode in the cluster. The
> subsequent block replicas should follow the normal block placement rules.
> The issue is that when the {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled, the first block
> replica is not placed on the local node, but it is still placed on the local
> rack. Where this comes into play is where you have, for example, a flume
> agent that is loading data into HDFS.
> If the Flume agent is running on a DataNode, then by default, the DataNode
> local to the Flume agent will always get the first block replica and this
> leads to un-even block placements, with the local node always filling up
> faster than any other node in the cluster.
> Modifying this example, if the DataNode is removed from the host where the
> Flume agent is running, or this {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled by Flume, then
> the default block placement policy will still prefer the local rack. This
> remedies the situation only so far as now the first block replica will always
> be distributed to a DataNode on the local rack.
> This new flag would allow a single Flume agent to distribute the blocks
> randomly, evenly, over the entire cluster instead of hot-spotting the local
> node or the local rack.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514861#comment-16514861 ] He Xiaoqiao commented on HDFS-13473: re-upload v004 patch, fix compile fail and kick on jenknis again. > DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode > > > Key: HDFS-13473 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: datanode >Reporter: He Xiaoqiao >Assignee: He Xiaoqiao >Priority: Major > Attachments: HDFS-13473-trunk.001.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.002.patch, > HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.004.patch > > > It is passive behavior about updating Block keys for DataNode currently, and > it depends on if NameNode return #KeyUpdateCommand for heartbeat response. > There are several problems of this Block keys synchronization mode: > a. NameNode can't be sensed about if Block Keys reach DataNode successfully, > b. It is also not sensed for DataNode who meets some exception while receive > or process heartbeat response which include BlockKeyCommand, > such as HDFS-13441 and HDFS-12749 mentioned. > So I propose improve Push Block Keys from NameNode for DataNode to DataNode > Pull Block Keys. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] He Xiaoqiao updated HDFS-13473: --- Attachment: HDFS-13473-trunk.004.patch > DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode > > > Key: HDFS-13473 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: datanode >Reporter: He Xiaoqiao >Assignee: He Xiaoqiao >Priority: Major > Attachments: HDFS-13473-trunk.001.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.002.patch, > HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.004.patch > > > It is passive behavior about updating Block keys for DataNode currently, and > it depends on if NameNode return #KeyUpdateCommand for heartbeat response. > There are several problems of this Block keys synchronization mode: > a. NameNode can't be sensed about if Block Keys reach DataNode successfully, > b. It is also not sensed for DataNode who meets some exception while receive > or process heartbeat response which include BlockKeyCommand, > such as HDFS-13441 and HDFS-12749 mentioned. > So I propose improve Push Block Keys from NameNode for DataNode to DataNode > Pull Block Keys. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] He Xiaoqiao updated HDFS-13473: --- Attachment: (was: HDFS-13473-trunk.004.patch) > DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode > > > Key: HDFS-13473 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: datanode >Reporter: He Xiaoqiao >Assignee: He Xiaoqiao >Priority: Major > Attachments: HDFS-13473-trunk.001.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.002.patch, > HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch > > > It is passive behavior about updating Block keys for DataNode currently, and > it depends on if NameNode return #KeyUpdateCommand for heartbeat response. > There are several problems of this Block keys synchronization mode: > a. NameNode can't be sensed about if Block Keys reach DataNode successfully, > b. It is also not sensed for DataNode who meets some exception while receive > or process heartbeat response which include BlockKeyCommand, > such as HDFS-13441 and HDFS-12749 mentioned. > So I propose improve Push Block Keys from NameNode for DataNode to DataNode > Pull Block Keys. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] He Xiaoqiao updated HDFS-13473: --- Attachment: HDFS-13473-trunk.004.patch > DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode > > > Key: HDFS-13473 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: datanode >Reporter: He Xiaoqiao >Assignee: He Xiaoqiao >Priority: Major > Attachments: HDFS-13473-trunk.001.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.002.patch, > HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.004.patch > > > It is passive behavior about updating Block keys for DataNode currently, and > it depends on if NameNode return #KeyUpdateCommand for heartbeat response. > There are several problems of this Block keys synchronization mode: > a. NameNode can't be sensed about if Block Keys reach DataNode successfully, > b. It is also not sensed for DataNode who meets some exception while receive > or process heartbeat response which include BlockKeyCommand, > such as HDFS-13441 and HDFS-12749 mentioned. > So I propose improve Push Block Keys from NameNode for DataNode to DataNode > Pull Block Keys. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
BELUGA BEHR updated HDFS-13448:
---
Attachment: HDFS-13448.10.patch
> HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
> --
>
> Key: HDFS-13448
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: block placement, hdfs-client
>Affects Versions: 2.9.0, 3.0.1
>Reporter: BELUGA BEHR
>Assignee: BELUGA BEHR
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-13448.1.patch, HDFS-13448.10.patch,
> HDFS-13448.2.patch, HDFS-13448.3.patch, HDFS-13448.4.patch,
> HDFS-13448.5.patch, HDFS-13448.6.patch, HDFS-13448.7.patch,
> HDFS-13448.8.patch, HDFS-13448.9.patch
>
>
> According to the HDFS Block Place Rules:
> {quote}
> /**
> * The replica placement strategy is that if the writer is on a datanode,
> * the 1st replica is placed on the local machine,
> * otherwise a random datanode. The 2nd replica is placed on a datanode
> * that is on a different rack. The 3rd replica is placed on a datanode
> * which is on a different node of the rack as the second replica.
> */
> {quote}
> However, there is a hint for the hdfs-client that allows the block placement
> request to not put a block replica on the local datanode _where 'local' means
> the same host as the client is being run on._
> {quote}
> /**
>* Advise that a block replica NOT be written to the local DataNode where
>* 'local' means the same host as the client is being run on.
>*
>* @see CreateFlag#NO_LOCAL_WRITE
>*/
> {quote}
> I propose that we add a new flag that allows the hdfs-client to request that
> the first block replica be placed on a random DataNode in the cluster. The
> subsequent block replicas should follow the normal block placement rules.
> The issue is that when the {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled, the first block
> replica is not placed on the local node, but it is still placed on the local
> rack. Where this comes into play is where you have, for example, a flume
> agent that is loading data into HDFS.
> If the Flume agent is running on a DataNode, then by default, the DataNode
> local to the Flume agent will always get the first block replica and this
> leads to un-even block placements, with the local node always filling up
> faster than any other node in the cluster.
> Modifying this example, if the DataNode is removed from the host where the
> Flume agent is running, or this {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled by Flume, then
> the default block placement policy will still prefer the local rack. This
> remedies the situation only so far as now the first block replica will always
> be distributed to a DataNode on the local rack.
> This new flag would allow a single Flume agent to distribute the blocks
> randomly, evenly, over the entire cluster instead of hot-spotting the local
> node or the local rack.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13448) HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
BELUGA BEHR updated HDFS-13448:
---
Status: Open (was: Patch Available)
> HDFS Block Placement - Ignore Locality for First Block Replica
> --
>
> Key: HDFS-13448
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13448
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: block placement, hdfs-client
>Affects Versions: 3.0.1, 2.9.0
>Reporter: BELUGA BEHR
>Assignee: BELUGA BEHR
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-13448.1.patch, HDFS-13448.2.patch,
> HDFS-13448.3.patch, HDFS-13448.4.patch, HDFS-13448.5.patch,
> HDFS-13448.6.patch, HDFS-13448.7.patch, HDFS-13448.8.patch, HDFS-13448.9.patch
>
>
> According to the HDFS Block Place Rules:
> {quote}
> /**
> * The replica placement strategy is that if the writer is on a datanode,
> * the 1st replica is placed on the local machine,
> * otherwise a random datanode. The 2nd replica is placed on a datanode
> * that is on a different rack. The 3rd replica is placed on a datanode
> * which is on a different node of the rack as the second replica.
> */
> {quote}
> However, there is a hint for the hdfs-client that allows the block placement
> request to not put a block replica on the local datanode _where 'local' means
> the same host as the client is being run on._
> {quote}
> /**
>* Advise that a block replica NOT be written to the local DataNode where
>* 'local' means the same host as the client is being run on.
>*
>* @see CreateFlag#NO_LOCAL_WRITE
>*/
> {quote}
> I propose that we add a new flag that allows the hdfs-client to request that
> the first block replica be placed on a random DataNode in the cluster. The
> subsequent block replicas should follow the normal block placement rules.
> The issue is that when the {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled, the first block
> replica is not placed on the local node, but it is still placed on the local
> rack. Where this comes into play is where you have, for example, a flume
> agent that is loading data into HDFS.
> If the Flume agent is running on a DataNode, then by default, the DataNode
> local to the Flume agent will always get the first block replica and this
> leads to un-even block placements, with the local node always filling up
> faster than any other node in the cluster.
> Modifying this example, if the DataNode is removed from the host where the
> Flume agent is running, or this {{NO_LOCAL_WRITE}} is enabled by Flume, then
> the default block placement policy will still prefer the local rack. This
> remedies the situation only so far as now the first block replica will always
> be distributed to a DataNode on the local rack.
> This new flag would allow a single Flume agent to distribute the blocks
> randomly, evenly, over the entire cluster instead of hot-spotting the local
> node or the local rack.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514845#comment-16514845
]
genericqa commented on HDFS-13473:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
25s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 13 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 26m
52s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m
58s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
13s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 1m
2s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 3m
20s{color} | {color:red} branch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 1m
55s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
48s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} mvninstall {color} | {color:red} 0m
52s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} compile {color} | {color:red} 0m
53s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} cc {color} | {color:red} 0m 53s{color} |
{color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javac {color} | {color:red} 0m 53s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
9s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} mvnsite {color} | {color:red} 0m
55s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 2m
12s{color} | {color:red} patch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 0m
24s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 0m 53s{color}
| {color:red} hadoop-hdfs in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
20s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 43m 12s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hadoop:abb62dd |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-13473 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12928083/HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch
|
| Optional Tests | asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall mvnsite
unit shadedclient findbugs checkstyle cc |
| uname | Linux 542c8e1ece04 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 27
10:45:36 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality | /testptch/patchprocess/precommit/personality/provided.sh |
| git revision | trunk / 8762e9c |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.3.9 |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_171 |
| findbugs | v3.1.0-RC1 |
| mvninstall |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/24462/artifact/out/patch-mvninstall-hadoop-hdfs-project_hadoop-hdfs.txt
|
| compile |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/24462/artifact/out/patch-compile-hadoop-hdfs-project_hadoop-hdfs.txt
|
| cc |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/24462/artifact/out/patch-compile-hadoop-hdfs-project_hadoop-hdfs.txt
|
| javac |
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514831#comment-16514831
]
He Xiaoqiao commented on HDFS-13473:
[~daryn], Thanks for your review.
In v003, update logic about checking access key update and make sure that NN
sends the keys to every DataNode, also I add unittest for this case.
{quote}Why is the BPServiceActor swallowing IllegalArgumentException?{quote}
It seems to slip up and I also remove this unnecessary exception catching.
Thanks agian [~daryn], and I look forward to your feedback.
> DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
>
>
> Key: HDFS-13473
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: datanode
>Reporter: He Xiaoqiao
>Assignee: He Xiaoqiao
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-13473-trunk.001.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.002.patch,
> HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch
>
>
> It is passive behavior about updating Block keys for DataNode currently, and
> it depends on if NameNode return #KeyUpdateCommand for heartbeat response.
> There are several problems of this Block keys synchronization mode:
> a. NameNode can't be sensed about if Block Keys reach DataNode successfully,
> b. It is also not sensed for DataNode who meets some exception while receive
> or process heartbeat response which include BlockKeyCommand,
> such as HDFS-13441 and HDFS-12749 mentioned.
> So I propose improve Push Block Keys from NameNode for DataNode to DataNode
> Pull Block Keys.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (HDFS-13473) DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] He Xiaoqiao updated HDFS-13473: --- Attachment: HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch > DataNode update BlockKeys using mode PULL rather than PUSH from NameNode > > > Key: HDFS-13473 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13473 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: datanode >Reporter: He Xiaoqiao >Assignee: He Xiaoqiao >Priority: Major > Attachments: HDFS-13473-trunk.001.patch, HDFS-13473-trunk.002.patch, > HDFS-13473-trunk.003.patch > > > It is passive behavior about updating Block keys for DataNode currently, and > it depends on if NameNode return #KeyUpdateCommand for heartbeat response. > There are several problems of this Block keys synchronization mode: > a. NameNode can't be sensed about if Block Keys reach DataNode successfully, > b. It is also not sensed for DataNode who meets some exception while receive > or process heartbeat response which include BlockKeyCommand, > such as HDFS-13441 and HDFS-12749 mentioned. > So I propose improve Push Block Keys from NameNode for DataNode to DataNode > Pull Block Keys. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDDS-175) Refactor ContainerInfo to remove Pipeline object from it
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-175?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16514713#comment-16514713
]
genericqa commented on HDDS-175:
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
37s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 18 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} trunk Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 1m
44s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 32m
52s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 31m
41s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
25s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 4m
57s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 7m
50s{color} | {color:red} branch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site hadoop-ozone/integration-test
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
3s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 4m
43s{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
21s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
19s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 28m
27s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 28m
27s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 28m
27s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
24s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 4m
55s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedclient {color} | {color:red} 2m
21s{color} | {color:red} patch has errors when building and testing our client
artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source:
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-site hadoop-ozone/integration-test
{color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m
11s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-hdds/common generated 1 new + 0 unchanged - 0
fixed = 1 total (was 0) {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 0m
50s{color} | {color:red} hadoop-hdds/server-scm generated 1 new + 0 unchanged -
0 fixed = 1 total (was 0) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 4m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
23s{color} | {color:green} hadoop-yarn-site in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m
18s{color} | {color:green} common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
28s{color} | {color:green} client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 2m 18s{color}
| {color:red} server-scm in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
28s{color}
