[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15283384#comment-15283384
]
Ming Ma commented on HDFS-8872:
-------------------------------
Agree that we should try to make fsck and webUI consistent Note that isn't just
for webUI, it is also about the MissingBlocks metrics which the webUI is based
on.
For this scenario, it is debatable if the block should be marked as missing, it
isn't uncommon for admins to decommission multiple nodes across racks, which
means all 3 replica nodes will be in decommissioning state. We don't want to
mark the block as missing during this transition window, as it might trigger
unnecessary alert. Actually after HDFS-7933, fsck includes decommissioning
nodes and won't mark it as missing anymore. Want to check again?
> Reporting of missing blocks is different in fsck and namenode ui/metasave
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-8872
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8872
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Reporter: Rushabh S Shah
> Assignee: Rushabh S Shah
>
> Namenode ui and metasave will not report a block as missing if the only
> replica is on decommissioning/decomissioned node while fsck will show it as
> MISSING.
> Since decommissioned node can be formatted/removed anytime, we can actually
> lose the block.
> Its better to alert on namenode ui if the only copy is on
> decomissioned/decommissioning node.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
