[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8889?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Li Bo updated HDFS-8889:
------------------------
    Attachment: HDFS-8889-HDFS-7285-001.patch

> Erasure Coding: cover more test situations of datanode failure during client 
> writing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-8889
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8889
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Li Bo
>            Assignee: Li Bo
>         Attachments: HDFS-8889-HDFS-7285-001.patch
>
>
> Currently 9 streamers are working together for the client writing. A small 
> number of failed datanodes (<= 3) for a block group should not influence the 
> writing. There’re a lot of datanode failure cases and we should cover as many 
> as possible in unit test.
> Suppose streamer 4 fails, the following situations for the next block group 
> should be considered:
> 1)    all streamers succeed
> 2)    Streamer 4 still fails
> 3)    only streamer 1 fails
> 4)    only streamer 8 fails (test parity streamer)
> 5)    streamer 4 and 6 fail
> 6)    streamer 4 and 1,6 fail
> 7)    streamer 4 and 1,2,6 fail
> 8)    streamer 2, 6 fail
> Suppose streamer 2 and 4 fail, the following situations for the next block 
> group should be considered:
> 1)    only streamer 2 and 4 fail
> 2)    streamer 2, 4, 8 fail
> 3)    only streamer 2 fails
> 4)    streamer 3 , 8 fail
> For a single streamer, we should consider the following situations of the 
> time of datanode failure:
> 1)    before writing the first byte
> 2)    before finishing writing the first cell
> 3)    right after finishing writing the first cell
> 4)    before writing the last byte of the block
> Other situations:
> 1)    more than 3 streamers fail at the first block group
> 2)    more than 3 streamers fail at the last block group
> <more …>



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

Reply via email to