[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15297054#comment-15297054
]
Rushabh S Shah commented on HDFS-8872:
--------------------------------------
bq. Actually after HDFS-7933, fsck includes decommissioning nodes and won't
mark it as missing anymore.
It includes the decommissioned nodes also.
See the code below.
{code:title=NamenodeFsck.java|borderStyle=solid}
int totalReplicas = liveReplicas + decommissionedReplicas +
decommissioningReplicas;
..
..
if (totalReplicas == 0) {
report.append(" MISSING!");
res.addMissing(block.toString(), block.getNumBytes());
missing++;
missize += block.getNumBytes();
}
{code}
> 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
