[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8805?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14640787#comment-14640787
]
Jing Zhao commented on HDFS-8805:
---------------------------------
Thanks for working on this, [~brahmareddy]. The patch looks good to me overall.
Some minor comments:
# I think we also need to update {{getFileInfo(FSDirectory, String, boolean)}}
where we do not need to check {{isSuperUser}} anymore.
# Also the parameter {{includeStoragePolicy}} can be removed from
{{getFileInfo(FSDirectory, String, boolean, boolean, boolean)}}.
# nitty pick: it may be more natural to have "i.isSymlink() ?
HdfsConstants.BLOCK_STORAGE_POLICY_ID_UNSPECIFIED : i.getStoragePolicyID()" in
the following code.
{code}
+ byte policyId =
+ !i.isSymlink() ? i.getStoragePolicyID()
+ : HdfsConstants.BLOCK_STORAGE_POLICY_ID_UNSPECIFIED;
{code}
> Archival Storage: getStoragePolicy should not need superuser privilege
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-8805
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8805
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: balancer & mover, namenode
> Reporter: Hui Zheng
> Assignee: Brahma Reddy Battula
> Fix For: 2.6.0
>
> Attachments: HDFS-8805.patch
>
>
> The result of getStoragePolicy command is always 'unspecified' even we has
> set a StoragePolicy on a directory.But the real placement of blocks is
> correct.
> The result of fsck is not correct either.
> {code}
> $ hdfs storagepolicies -setStoragePolicy -path /tmp/cold -policy COLD
> Set storage policy COLD on /tmp/cold
> $ hdfs storagepolicies -getStoragePolicy -path /tmp/cold
> The storage policy of /tmp/cold is unspecified
> $ hdfs fsck -storagepolicies /tmp/cold
> Blocks NOT satisfying the specified storage policy:
> Storage Policy Specified Storage Policy # of blocks
> % of blocks
> ARCHIVE:4(COLD) HOT 5
> 55.5556%
> ARCHIVE:3(COLD) HOT 4
> 44.4444%
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
