[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15296892#comment-15296892
]
Rushabh S Shah commented on HDFS-8872:
--------------------------------------
Thanks [~mingma] for mentioning HDFS-7933.
bq. 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.
I agree the block should not be marked as missing if all the replica are on
DecommissionING nodes.
But we *should* mark the block as missing if all the replicas are on
DecommissionED nodes since we can take the Decommissioned node out of rotation
anytime.
We have seen multiple cases in which all the replicas are in Decommissioned
nodes.
Any thoughts ?
> 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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
