> On Nov. 18, 2013, 6:33 p.m., Josh Elser wrote: > > test/system/continuous/hdfs-agitator.pl, line 90 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15650/diff/1/?file=388001#file388001line90> > > > > It would be nice to default to running as the invoking user instead of > > forcing sudo. If I have discrete users set up for each role, I may not > > always want to have sudoers set up. > > > > Having the ability is definitely nice, though. > > Sean Busbey wrote: > haadmin is only runnable as an HDFS super user, and AFAICT the continuous > integration test runs as either the accumulo user or root (for its kill stuff > to work on the other components). > > If people run the agitator script as root, then the sudo is needed to > allow the command to run. If they run the agitator as something other than > root, then we need either a sudo to the accumulo user for the other agitator > stuff or one here. Unless the accumulo user is in the hdfs superuser group. > But I don't want to encourage people to add the accumulo user to the HDFS > superuser group. > > > Maybe a docs update is need too? > > I think it'd be simpler to document "run the agitator as root because > it's going to need access to multiple users". Or is it worth the overhead of > properly breaking the testing out into users-per-role? > > Sean Busbey wrote: > Changed to default to run as current user unless --sudo is given. If that > fails, makes an attempt to default to sudo on the path.
Awesome. Sounds good. Agreed that the docs likely need to be updated (or formally written) > On Nov. 18, 2013, 6:33 p.m., Josh Elser wrote: > > test/system/continuous/hdfs-agitator.pl, line 120 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15650/diff/1/?file=388001#file388001line120> > > > > Maybe rename this from hdfs-agitator to ha-hdfs-agitator (or similar). > > agitator.pl also agitates datanodes so the name is a bit of a misnomer. > > Sean Busbey wrote: > I'd rather pull the agitator.pl parts that mess with datanodes here. that > way we'd get better failure testing for when data nodes and tablet servers > are not the same set of machines and we could flex more advanced HDFS failure > conditions (like handling rack loss). > > Sound good? Yup. Makes sense. - Josh ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15650/#review29059 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 18, 2013, 5:13 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/15650/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 18, 2013, 5:13 p.m.) > > > Review request for accumulo and Alex Moundalexis. > > > Bugs: ACCUMULO-1794 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1794 > > > Repository: accumulo > > > Description > ------- > > ACCUMULO-1794 adds hdfs failover to continuous integration test. > > > Diffs > ----- > > test/system/continuous/continuous-env.sh.example > 830ae86b5bf2398a840b853423755f6dd65f2dc0 > test/system/continuous/hdfs-agitator.pl PRE-CREATION > test/system/continuous/start-agitator.sh > 52e5a4e82a4564fa624a71f73ad29fa20ba23246 > test/system/continuous/stop-agitator.sh > b853a55b12f8402606af52e0748ca50daf95ed7f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15650/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Ran the hdfs agitator on a CDH4 cluster configured for HA. it successfully > caused the active namenode to failover as it went. > > > Thanks, > > Sean Busbey > >
