[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14636597#comment-14636597
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-3570:
---------------------------------

\\
\\
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | pre-patch |  18m 25s | Findbugs (version ) appears to 
be broken on trunk. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | @author |   0m  0s | The patch does not contain any 
@author tags. |
| {color:red}-1{color} | tests included |   0m  0s | 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:green}+1{color} | javac |   7m 39s | There were no new javac warning 
messages. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | javadoc |   9m 40s | There were no new javadoc 
warning messages. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | release audit |   0m 22s | The applied patch does 
not increase the total number of release audit warnings. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | site |   3m  1s | Site still builds. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | checkstyle |   0m 51s | There were no new checkstyle 
issues. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | whitespace |   0m  0s | The patch has no lines that 
end in whitespace. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | install |   1m 23s | mvn install still works. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | eclipse:eclipse |   0m 32s | The patch built with 
eclipse:eclipse. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | findbugs |   2m 32s | The patch does not introduce 
any new Findbugs (version 3.0.0) warnings. |
| {color:green}+1{color} | native |   3m  2s | Pre-build of native portion |
| {color:red}-1{color} | hdfs tests | 161m 27s | Tests failed in hadoop-hdfs. |
| | | 208m 59s | |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed unit tests | hadoop.hdfs.TestDistributedFileSystem |
|   | hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestStandbyIsHot |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Patch URL | 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12746476/HDFS-3570.003.patch |
| Optional Tests | javadoc javac unit findbugs checkstyle site |
| git revision | trunk / 94c6a4a |
| hadoop-hdfs test log | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/11782/artifact/patchprocess/testrun_hadoop-hdfs.txt
 |
| Test Results | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/11782/testReport/ |
| Java | 1.7.0_55 |
| uname | Linux asf900.gq1.ygridcore.net 3.13.0-36-lowlatency #63-Ubuntu SMP 
PREEMPT Wed Sep 3 21:56:12 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Console output | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/11782/console |


This message was automatically generated.

> Balancer shouldn't rely on "DFS Space Used %" as that ignores non-DFS used 
> space
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-3570
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3570
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: balancer & mover
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0-alpha
>            Reporter: Harsh J
>            Assignee: Akira AJISAKA
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: HDFS-3570.003.patch, HDFS-3570.2.patch, 
> HDFS-3570.aash.1.patch
>
>
> Report from a user here: 
> https://groups.google.com/a/cloudera.org/d/msg/cdh-user/pIhNyDVxdVY/b7ENZmEvBjIJ,
>  post archived at http://pastebin.com/eVFkk0A0
> This user had a specific DN that had a large non-DFS usage among 
> dfs.data.dirs, and very little DFS usage (which is computed against total 
> possible capacity). 
> Balancer apparently only looks at the usage, and ignores to consider that 
> non-DFS usage may also be high on a DN/cluster. Hence, it thinks that if a 
> DFS Usage report from DN is 8% only, its got a lot of free space to write 
> more blocks, when that isn't true as shown by the case of this user. It went 
> on scheduling writes to the DN to balance it out, but the DN simply can't 
> accept any more blocks as a result of its disks' state.
> I think it would be better if we _computed_ the actual utilization based on 
> {{(100-(actual remaining space))/(capacity)}}, as opposed to the current 
> {{(dfs used)/(capacity)}}. Thoughts?
> This isn't very critical, however, cause it is very rare to see DN space 
> being used for non DN data, but it does expose a valid bug.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to