[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9083?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14978452#comment-14978452
]
Rushabh S Shah commented on HDFS-9083:
--------------------------------------
[~jingzhao] [~mingma] [~brahmareddy]: Thanks for the reviews.
I ran all the hdfs tests since jenkins failed to run the tests.
The following tests failed:
{noformat}
TestSecureNNWithQJM#testSecureMode
TestSecureNNWithQJM#testSecondaryNameNodeHttpAddressNotNeeded
TestAppendSnapshotTruncate#testAST
TestBalancer#testTwoReplicaShouldNotInSameDN
TestBalancer#testBalancerWithPinnedBlocks
TestBalancer#testBalancerWithZeroThreadsForMove
TestBalancerWithSaslDataTransfer#testBalancer0Integrity
TestBalancerWithSaslDataTransfer#testBalancer0Authentication
TestBalancerWithSaslDataTransfer#testBalancer0Privacy
TestBalancerWithNodeGroup#testBalancerWithNodeGroup
TestBalancerWithNodeGroup#testBalancerEndInNoMoveProgress
TestSaslDataTransfer#testServerSaslNoClientSasl
TestSaslDataTransfer#testClientAndServerDoNotHaveCommonQop
TestSaslDataTransfer#testAuthentication
TestSaslDataTransfer#testPrivacy
TestSaslDataTransfer#testNoSaslAndSecurePortsIgnored
TestSaslDataTransfer#testIntegrity
{noformat}
I ran all these tests multiple times.
All these tests failed always except TestAppendSnapshotTruncate#testAST, which
failed intermittently.
I ran all the failed tests without my patch also and they failed.
So none of the test failures are related to my patch.
I will start the test-patch.sh on my machine and upload the results shortly.
> 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)
