[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13165?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16447785#comment-16447785
]
Rakesh R commented on HDFS-13165:
---------------------------------
{quote}Secondly, how about refactoring sps code to support DNA_TRANSFER
protocol changes to a separate jira sub-task, then continue implementing there.
I will create a patch with only the IBR related changes in this jira and then
commit it, that would help me rather than carrying bigger patch here.
{quote}
Attached new patch to this jira, I've excluded {{block move}} related changes
from this jira so that I would be able to finish the IBR changes amap and
commit it. I've raised HDFS-13491 to reach common agreement on block move
protocol changes and implement the same.
> [SPS]: Collects successfully moved block details via IBR
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-13165
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13165
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Rakesh R
> Assignee: Rakesh R
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-00.patch,
> HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-01.patch, HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-02.patch,
> HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-03.patch, HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-04.patch,
> HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-05.patch, HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-06.patch,
> HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-07.patch, HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-08.patch,
> HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-09.patch
>
>
> This task to make use of the existing IBR to get moved block details and
> remove unwanted future tracking logic exists in BlockStorageMovementTracker
> code, this is no more needed as the file level tracking maintained at NN
> itself.
> Following comments taken from HDFS-10285,
> [here|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10285?focusedCommentId=16347472&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16347472]
> Comment-3)
> {quote}BPServiceActor
> Is it actually sending back the moved blocks? Aren’t IBRs sufficient?{quote}
> Comment-21)
> {quote}
> BlockStorageMovementTracker
> Many data structures are riddled with non-threadsafe race conditions and risk
> of CMEs.
> Ex. The moverTaskFutures map. Adding new blocks and/or adding to a block's
> list of futures is synchronized. However the run loop does an unsynchronized
> block get, unsynchronized future remove, unsynchronized isEmpty, possibly
> another unsynchronized get, only then does it do a synchronized remove of the
> block. The whole chunk of code should be synchronized.
> Is the problematic moverTaskFutures even needed? It's aggregating futures
> per-block for seemingly no reason. Why track all the futures at all instead
> of just relying on the completion service? As best I can tell:
> It's only used to determine if a future from the completion service should be
> ignored during shutdown. Shutdown sets the running boolean to false and
> clears the entire datastructure so why not use the running boolean like a
> check just a little further down?
> As synchronization to sleep up to 2 seconds before performing a blocking
> moverCompletionService.take, but only when it thinks there are no active
> futures. I'll ignore the missed notify race that the bounded wait masks, but
> the real question is why not just do the blocking take?
> Why all the complexity? Am I missing something?
> BlocksMovementsStatusHandler
> Suffers same type of thread safety issues as StoragePolicySatisfyWorker. Ex.
> blockIdVsMovementStatus is inconsistent synchronized. Does synchronize to
> return an unmodifiable list which sadly does nothing to protect the caller
> from CME.
> handle is iterating over a non-thread safe list.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
