[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15218247#comment-15218247
 ] 

Nicolas Fraison commented on HDFS-10220:
----------------------------------------

[~vinayrpet] the day we face this kind of failover we have faced multiple 
failover with the same issue on both namenodes. It happens after a bad action 
on the cluster removing the mapreduce.jobhistory.intermediate-done-dir folder 
whith then lots of mapreduce failing...

Since we have applied this patch we have one time reached 250K lease to release 
taking a total time of 45 seconds (having 100 k lease treated per cycle).

> Namenode failover due to too long loking in LeaseManager.Monitor
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-10220
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10220
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: namenode
>            Reporter: Nicolas Fraison
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: HADOOP-10220.001.patch, threaddump_zkfc.txt
>
>
> I have faced a namenode failover due to unresponsive namenode detected by the 
> zkfc with lot's of WARN messages (5 millions) like this one:
> _org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.StateChange: BLOCK* internalReleaseLease: All 
> existing blocks are COMPLETE, lease removed, file closed._
> On the threaddump taken by the zkfc there are lots of thread blocked due to a 
> lock.
> Looking at the code, there are a lock taken by the LeaseManager.Monitor when 
> some lease must be released. Due to the really big number of lease to be 
> released the namenode has taken too many times to release them blocking all 
> other tasks and making the zkfc thinking that the namenode was not 
> available/stuck.
> The idea of this patch is to limit the number of leased released each time we 
> check for lease so the lock won't be taken for a too long time period.



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

Reply via email to