[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7537?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14334742#comment-14334742
]
GAO Rui commented on HDFS-7537:
-------------------------------
Thank you very much for your review and comment.
1. I think minReplication may get its value from
DFSConfigKeys.DFS_NAMENODE_REPLICATION_MIN_KEY in the first place. I’ll try to
figure this out and add it to the output.
2. In Allen’s comment, the Mock-up output shows status as HEALTHY when
numUnderMinimalRelicatedBlocks > 0. It’s his careless mistake or maybe he has
his reason to keep the status as HEALTHY while show the
numUnderMinimalRelicatedBlocks in the same time?
3. I haven’t added unit test before, but I’ll try to do that.
4. Sorry, I’ll fix it and avoid this kind of mistakes in future codes.
> fsck is confusing when dfs.namenode.replication.min > 1 && missing replicas
> && NN restart
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-7537
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7537
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: namenode
> Reporter: Allen Wittenauer
> Assignee: GAO Rui
> Attachments: HDFS-7537.1.patch, dfs-min-2-fsck.png, dfs-min-2.png
>
>
> If minimum replication is set to 2 or higher and some of those replicas are
> missing and the namenode restarts, it isn't always obvious that the missing
> replicas are the reason why the namenode isn't leaving safemode. We should
> improve the output of fsck and the web UI to make it obvious that the missing
> blocks are from unmet replicas vs. completely/totally missing.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
