[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9083?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14974953#comment-14974953 ]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-9083: --------------------------------- \\ \\ | (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* | \\ \\ || Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment || | {color:red}-1{color} | patch | 0m 0s | The patch command could not apply the patch during dryrun. | \\ \\ || Subsystem || Report/Notes || | Patch URL | http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12768797/HDFS-9083-branch-2.7.patch | | Optional Tests | javadoc javac unit findbugs checkstyle | | git revision | branch-2 / baa2998 | | Console output | https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/13198/console | This message was automatically generated. > Replication violates block placement policy. > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: HDFS-9083 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9083 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Bug > Components: HDFS, namenode > Affects Versions: 2.6.0 > Reporter: Rushabh S Shah > Assignee: Rushabh S Shah > Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HDFS-9083-branch-2.7.patch > > > Recently we are noticing many cases in which all the replica of the block are > residing on the same rack. > During the block creation, the block placement policy was honored. > But after node failure event in some specific manner, the block ends up in > such state. > On investigating more I found out that BlockManager#blockHasEnoughRacks is > dependent on the config (net.topology.script.file.name) > {noformat} > if (!this.shouldCheckForEnoughRacks) { > return true; > } > {noformat} > We specify DNSToSwitchMapping implementation (our own custom implementation) > via net.topology.node.switch.mapping.impl and no longer use > net.topology.script.file.name config. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)