-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8396/#review14147
-----------------------------------------------------------


Hari, I think this is a great patch!!  Nice work! Patch looks great, I have a 
few typical small comments below. Additionally, it looks like we are missing a 
couple test cases where we'd do full replay. It's certainly possible I am just 
missing the test, so excuse me if I am:

Bad Version of Checkpoint itself
Bad Version of Checkpoint meta
Differing write order ids between meta and checkpoint
Checkpoint marker incomplete


flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/BadCheckpointException.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/8396/#comment30239>

    Nit: Javadoc comment without any text



flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/BadCheckpointException.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/8396/#comment30240>

    When we log this exception we print a very similar message. Additionally, 
this constructor is used when this statement is probably not true (ie the 
version is bad).
    
    What do you think about removing this constructor and then adding an 
appropriate error message each time?



flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/Log.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/8396/#comment30241>

    I think we can delete the v1 stuff but we should probably do that in a 
different JIRA.



flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/Serialization.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/8396/#comment30238>

    How about logging what files we are deleting just in case a file goes 
missing at some point?


- Brock Noland


On Dec. 7, 2012, 6:16 a.m., Hari Shreedharan wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8396/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 7, 2012, 6:16 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Flume.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added code to throw a BadCheckpointException, if we can recover from the 
> situation by deleting all files in the checkpoint directory. In the log 
> class, during startup if BadCheckpointException is caught, all files are 
> deleted and replay is retried.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug FLUME-1762.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1762
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/BadCheckpointException.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/EventQueueBackingStoreFactory.java
>  6c07152 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/EventQueueBackingStoreFile.java
>  5eaf8c2 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/EventQueueBackingStoreFileV2.java
>  8bbc081 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/EventQueueBackingStoreFileV3.java
>  c24f89f 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/FlumeEventQueue.java
>  36553c5 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/Log.java
>  6d1cf51 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/Serialization.java
>  ef8cf72 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/TestEventQueueBackingStoreFactory.java
>  b1a55be 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/TestFileChannelRestart.java
>  3f90805 
>   
> flume-ng-channels/flume-file-channel/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/file/TestFlumeEventQueue.java
>  0173390 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8396/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added unit tests. Modified some existing unit tests to test for this change.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hari Shreedharan
> 
>

Reply via email to