[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16675433#comment-16675433
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-21395:
Results for branch branch-2.1
[build #580 on
builds.a.o|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.1/580/]:
(x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}*
details (if available):
(/) {color:green}+1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.1/580//General_Nightly_Build_Report/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk8 hadoop2 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop2)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.1/580//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop2)/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.1/580//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop3)/]
(/) {color:green}+1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
(/) {color:green}+1 client integration test{color}
> Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table
> going on
>
>
> Key: HBASE-21395
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2
>Reporter: Allan Yang
>Assignee: Allan Yang
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.0.3, 2.1.2
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch,
> HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.002.patch, HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.003.patch,
> HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.004.patch
>
>
> In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table
> procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there
> some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some
> serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table
> procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure
> rollback.
> Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in
> branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single
> region at the same time.
> To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe
> fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on
> against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the
> split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal,
> compared with the mess it will cause...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16675398#comment-16675398
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-21395:
Results for branch branch-2.0
[build #1060 on
builds.a.o|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.0/1060/]:
(x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}*
details (if available):
(/) {color:green}+1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.0/1060//General_Nightly_Build_Report/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop2 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop2)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.0/1060//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop2)/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.0/1060//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop3)/]
(/) {color:green}+1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
> Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table
> going on
>
>
> Key: HBASE-21395
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2
>Reporter: Allan Yang
>Assignee: Allan Yang
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.0.3, 2.1.2
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch,
> HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.002.patch, HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.003.patch,
> HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.004.patch
>
>
> In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table
> procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there
> some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some
> serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table
> procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure
> rollback.
> Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in
> branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single
> region at the same time.
> To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe
> fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on
> against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the
> split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal,
> compared with the mess it will cause...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16675047#comment-16675047 ] Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21395: Pushed to branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, thanks for reviewing, [~stack],[~xucang]. > Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table > going on > > > Key: HBASE-21395 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task >Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2 >Reporter: Allan Yang >Assignee: Allan Yang >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.0.3, 2.1.2 > > Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch, > HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.002.patch, HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.003.patch, > HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.004.patch > > > In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table > procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there > some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some > serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table > procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure > rollback. > Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in > branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single > region at the same time. > To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe > fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on > against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the > split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal, > compared with the mess it will cause... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16667469#comment-16667469 ] stack commented on HBASE-21395: --- +1 Perhaps on commit, add to comment that his is a fix for branch-2.1/branch-2.0 only? For the folks comparing branches down the road? > Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table > going on > > > Key: HBASE-21395 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task >Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2 >Reporter: Allan Yang >Assignee: Allan Yang >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.0.3, 2.1.2 > > Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch, > HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.002.patch, HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.003.patch, > HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.004.patch > > > In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table > procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there > some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some > serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table > procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure > rollback. > Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in > branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single > region at the same time. > To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe > fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on > against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the > split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal, > compared with the mess it will cause... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=1825#comment-1825
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21395:
---
| (/) *{color:green}+1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
14s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {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:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} test4tests {color} | {color:orange}
0m 0s{color} | {color:orange} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or
modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also
please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2.0 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 5m
10s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
51s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
15s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
56s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
26s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
39s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
46s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m
46s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
11s{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:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
0s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
9m 26s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.6.5
2.7.4 or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
38s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
34s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}135m
10s{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
31s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}174m 7s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:6f01af0 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21395 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12945981/HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.004.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck hbaseanti checkstyle compile |
| uname | Linux d569e642071d 3.13.0-153-generic #203-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 14
08:52:28 UTC 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality |
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/component/dev-support/hbase-personality.sh
|
| git revision | branch-2.0 / a3b2686114 |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.5.4
(1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-17T18:33:14Z) |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_181 |
| findbugs | v3.1.0-RC3 |
| Test Results |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/14893/testReport/ |
| Max. process+thread count | 4069 (vs. ulimit of 1) |
| modules | C: hbase-server U: hbase-server |
| Console output |
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=1417#comment-1417
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21395:
---
| (/) *{color:green}+1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
14s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {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:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} test4tests {color} | {color:orange}
0m 0s{color} | {color:orange} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or
modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also
please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2.0 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
50s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
42s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
10s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
1s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
19s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
32s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
45s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
9s{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:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
59s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
8m 19s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.6.5
2.7.4 or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
30s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}119m
48s{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
21s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}155m 16s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:6f01af0 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21395 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12945962/HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.003.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck hbaseanti checkstyle compile |
| uname | Linux 094956d856f9 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 27
10:45:36 UTC 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality |
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/component/dev-support/hbase-personality.sh
|
| git revision | branch-2.0 / a3b2686114 |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.5.4
(1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-17T18:33:14Z) |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_181 |
| findbugs | v3.1.0-RC3 |
| Test Results |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/14889/testReport/ |
| Max. process+thread count | 4245 (vs. ulimit of 1) |
| modules | C: hbase-server U: hbase-server |
| Console output |
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=1213#comment-1213
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21395:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
13s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {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:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} test4tests {color} | {color:orange}
0m 0s{color} | {color:orange} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or
modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also
please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2.0 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
51s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
51s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
13s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
59s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
18s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
31s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
42s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
46s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m
46s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
10s{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:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
9s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
9m 53s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.6.5
2.7.4 or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
49s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}133m 43s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
27s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}170m 46s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAdmin1 |
| | hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestMobFlushSnapshotFromClient |
| | hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestFlushSnapshotFromClient |
| | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAsyncRegionAdminApi2 |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:6f01af0 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21395 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12945918/HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.002.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck hbaseanti checkstyle compile |
| uname | Linux 8c5c2b4bcca9 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 27
10:45:36 UTC 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality |
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/component/dev-support/hbase-personality.sh
|
| git revision | branch-2.0 / a3b2686114 |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.5.4
(1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-17T18:33:14Z) |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_181 |
| findbugs |
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=1088#comment-1088
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21395:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
13s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {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:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} test4tests {color} | {color:orange}
0m 0s{color} | {color:orange} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or
modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also
please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2.0 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
57s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
50s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
11s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
1s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
29s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
30s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
40s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m
43s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
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:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
54s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
8m 13s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.6.5
2.7.4 or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
22s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
30s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}130m 40s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
28s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}165m 25s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAdmin1 |
| | hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestMobFlushSnapshotFromClient |
| | hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestFlushSnapshotFromClient |
| | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAsyncRegionAdminApi2 |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:6f01af0 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21395 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12945883/HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.002.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck hbaseanti checkstyle compile |
| uname | Linux 68f6025c53e4 3.13.0-143-generic #192-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 27
10:45:36 UTC 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality |
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/component/dev-support/hbase-personality.sh
|
| git revision | branch-2.0 / a3b2686114 |
| maven | version: Apache Maven 3.5.4
(1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-17T18:33:14Z) |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_181 |
| findbugs |
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16665971#comment-16665971 ] Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21395: [~xucang] thanks for your advice, v2 uploaded. > Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table > going on > > > Key: HBASE-21395 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task >Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2 >Reporter: Allan Yang >Assignee: Allan Yang >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.1.2 > > Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch, > HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.002.patch > > > In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table > procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there > some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some > serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table > procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure > rollback. > Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in > branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single > region at the same time. > To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe > fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on > against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the > split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal, > compared with the mess it will cause... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16665882#comment-16665882
]
Xu Cang commented on HBASE-21395:
-
Nit:
I see you use ".count()" with stream in if statement. But actually we don't
need to count them all, one should be enough.
Also, formatting in this line:
{quote}.map(p -> (AbstractStateMachineTableProcedure) p).filter(
{quote}
maybe start a new line for 'filter"
> Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table
> going on
>
>
> Key: HBASE-21395
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
>Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2
>Reporter: Allan Yang
>Assignee: Allan Yang
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.1.2
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch
>
>
> In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table
> procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there
> some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some
> serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table
> procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure
> rollback.
> Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in
> branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single
> region at the same time.
> To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe
> fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on
> against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the
> split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal,
> compared with the mess it will cause...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16665746#comment-16665746
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21395:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
16s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {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:orange}-0{color} | {color:orange} test4tests {color} | {color:orange}
0m 0s{color} | {color:orange} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or
modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also
please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2.0 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
38s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 2m
5s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
20s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
20s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
39s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
36s{color} | {color:green} branch-2.0 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
3s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m
54s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m
54s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 1m
21s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 1 new + 11 unchanged
- 0 fixed = 12 total (was 11) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
13s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
9m 34s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.6.5
2.7.4 or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m
47s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}130m 8s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
21s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}169m 28s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAdmin1 |
| | hadoop.hbase.master.TestAssignmentListener |
| | hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestMobFlushSnapshotFromClient |
| | hadoop.hbase.master.TestMergeTableRegionsWhileRSCrash |
| | hadoop.hbase.TestSplitMerge |
| | hadoop.hbase.master.normalizer.TestSimpleRegionNormalizerOnCluster |
| | hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestFlushSnapshotFromClient |
| | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAsyncRegionAdminApi2 |
| | hadoop.hbase.namespace.TestNamespaceAuditor |
| | hadoop.hbase.client.TestTableFavoredNodes |
| | hadoop.hbase.TestSequenceIdMonotonicallyIncreasing |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:6f01af0 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21395 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12945797/HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck hbaseanti checkstyle compile |
| uname
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16665584#comment-16665584 ] stack commented on HBASE-21395: --- Ran mvn test -Dtest=TestMergeTableRegionsProcedure and got a nice message [ERROR] Failures: [ERROR] TestMergeTableRegionsProcedure.testMergeRegionsConcurrently:212 found exception: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.exceptions.MergeRegionException via master-merge-regions:org.apache.hadoop.hbase.exceptions.MergeRegionException: There is a table procedure going on against the same table, abort the merge of pid=48, state=RUNNABLE:MERGE_TABLE_REGIONS_PREPARE, locked=true; MergeTableRegionsProcedure table=testMergeRegionsConcurrently, regions=[3f957497f8b7b306120ca2c71fe1, 893d444596effc7aae69f8c1145500a0], forcibly=true [ERROR] TestMergeTableRegionsProcedure.testMergeTwoRegions:159 found exception: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.exceptions.MergeRegionException via master-merge-regions:org.apache.hadoop.hbase.exceptions.MergeRegionException: There is a table procedure going on against the same table, abort the merge of pid=36, state=RUNNABLE:MERGE_TABLE_REGIONS_PREPARE, locked=true; MergeTableRegionsProcedure table=testMergeTwoRegions, regions=[f5de4b3605e2aebdef0c8544d55abfb0, 67478c63bec10165fb383b8d35796a4a], forcibly=true [ERROR] TestMergeTableRegionsProcedure.testMergeWithoutPONR:295 expected a running proc [ERROR] TestMergeTableRegionsProcedure.testRecoveryAndDoubleExecution:242 found exception: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.exceptions.MergeRegionException via master-merge-regions:org.apache.hadoop.hbase.exceptions.MergeRegionException: There is a table procedure going on against the same table, abort the merge of pid=61, state=RUNNABLE:MERGE_TABLE_REGIONS_PREPARE, locked=true; MergeTableRegionsProcedure table=testRecoveryAndDoubleExecution, regions=[0db36af05fe46aef3e32a810e90c51ab, fd4e09b1f961af7a9cf05a12a51ef23b], forcibly=false [ERROR] TestMergeTableRegionsProcedure.testRollbackAndDoubleExecution:269 expected a running proc [INFO] [ERROR] Tests run: 5, Failures: 5, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0 Punting out to 2.1.2 > Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table > going on > > > Key: HBASE-21395 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task >Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2 >Reporter: Allan Yang >Assignee: Allan Yang >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.1.2 > > Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch > > > In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table > procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there > some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some > serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table > procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure > rollback. > Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in > branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single > region at the same time. > To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe > fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on > against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the > split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal, > compared with the mess it will cause... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16665324#comment-16665324 ] stack commented on HBASE-21395: --- Thanks [~allan163] Let me see how hadoopqa does on it. It is a simple check before the run of merge/split. Would be good to have I think (ITBLL critical for me testing candidates). > Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table > going on > > > Key: HBASE-21395 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task >Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2 >Reporter: Allan Yang >Assignee: Allan Yang >Priority: Major > Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch > > > In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table > procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there > some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some > serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table > procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure > rollback. > Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in > branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single > region at the same time. > To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe > fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on > against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the > split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal, > compared with the mess it will cause... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21395) Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table going on
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16665313#comment-16665313 ] Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21395: [~stack], FYI, this can go to 2.1.2. If users don't modify table so frequently like ITBLL, the change of race condition is very small. > Abort split/merge procedure if there is a table procedure of the same table > going on > > > Key: HBASE-21395 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21395 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task >Affects Versions: 2.1.0, 2.0.2 >Reporter: Allan Yang >Assignee: Allan Yang >Priority: Major > Attachments: HBASE-21395.branch-2.0.001.patch > > > In my ITBLL, I often see that if split/merge procedure and table > procedure(like ModifyTableProcedure) happen at the same time, and since there > some race conditions between these two kind of procedures, causing some > serious problems. e.g. the split/merged parent is bought on line by the table > procedure or the split merged region making the whole table procedure > rollback. > Talked with [~Apache9] offline today, this kind of problem was solved in > branch-2+ since There is a fence that only one RTSP can agianst a single > region at the same time. > To keep out of the mess in branch-2.0 and branch-2.1, I added a simple safe > fence in the split/merge procedure: If there is a table procedure going on > against the same table, then abort the split/merge procedure. Aborting the > split/merge procedure at the beginning of the execution is no big deal, > compared with the mess it will cause... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
