[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16913652#comment-16913652
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-14633:
----------------------------------
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
0s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 7s{color}
| {color:red} HDFS-14633 does not apply to trunk. Rebase required? Wrong
Branch? See https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute for help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-14633 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12978299/HDFS-14633.004.patch |
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/27633/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.8.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> The StorageType quota and consume in QuotaFeature is not handled when rename
> and setStoragePolicy etc.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-14633
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14633
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jinglun
> Assignee: Jinglun
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14633-testcases-explanation, HDFS-14633.002.patch,
> HDFS-14633.003.patch, HDFS-14633.004.patch
>
>
> The NameNode manages the global state of the cluster. We should always take
> NameNode's records as the sole criterion because no matter what inconsistent
> is the NameNode should finally make everything right based on it's records.
> Let's call it rule NSC(NameNode is the Sole Criterion). That means when we do
> all quota related rpcs, we do the quota check according to NameNode's records
> regardless of any inconsistent situation, such as the replicas doesn't match
> the storage policy of the file, or the replicas count doesn't match the
> file's set replica.
> The work SPS deals with the wrongly palced replicas. There is a thought
> about putting off the consume update of the DirectoryQuota until all replicas
> are re-placed by SPS. I can't agree that because if we do so we will abandon
> letting the NameNode's records to be the sole criterion. The block
> replication is a good example of the rule NSC. When we count the consume of a
> file(CONTIGUOUS), we multiply the replication factor with the file's length,
> no matter the blocks are under replicated or excessed. We should do the same
> thing for the storage type quota.
> Another concern is the change will let setStoragePolicy throw
> QuotaByStorageTypeExceededException which it doesn't before. I don't think
> it's a big problem since the setStoragePolicy already throws IOException. Or
> we can wrap the QuotaByStorageTypeExceededException in an IOException, but I
> won't recommend that because it's ugly.
> To make storage type consume follow the rule NSC, we need change
> rename(moving a file with storage policy inherited from it's parent) and
> setStoragePolicy.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
