[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14941?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16963468#comment-16963468
]
Chen Liang commented on HDFS-14941:
-----------------------------------
[~weichiu], assuming the current understanding is correct, yes, this is a
general problem that can happen in HA.
It will and will only manifest often when both the two conditions are met:
1. system under high load, so there are a lot of addBlock calls
2. {{dfs.ha.tail-edits.period}} is set to some very low value, which greatly
increases the chance that the two edits mentioned are tailed in different
segments.
These two conditions are not specific to CRS, but CRS does require
{{dfs.ha.tail-edits.period}} to be set low.
> Potential editlog race condition can cause corrupted file
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-14941
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14941
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: namenode
> Reporter: Chen Liang
> Assignee: Chen Liang
> Priority: Major
>
> Recently we encountered an issue that, after a failover, NameNode complains
> corrupted file/missing blocks. The blocks did recover after full block
> reports, so the blocks are not actually missing. After further investigation,
> we believe this is what happened:
> First of all, on SbN, it is possible that it receives block reports before
> corresponding edit tailing happened. In which case SbN postpones processing
> the DN block report, handled by the guarding logic below:
> {code:java}
> if (shouldPostponeBlocksFromFuture &&
> namesystem.isGenStampInFuture(iblk)) {
> queueReportedBlock(storageInfo, iblk, reportedState,
> QUEUE_REASON_FUTURE_GENSTAMP);
> continue;
> }
> {code}
> Basically if reported block has a future generation stamp, the DN report gets
> requeued.
> However, in {{FSNamesystem#storeAllocatedBlock}}, we have the following code:
> {code:java}
> // allocate new block, record block locations in INode.
> newBlock = createNewBlock();
> INodesInPath inodesInPath = INodesInPath.fromINode(pendingFile);
> saveAllocatedBlock(src, inodesInPath, newBlock, targets);
> persistNewBlock(src, pendingFile);
> offset = pendingFile.computeFileSize();
> {code}
> The line
> {{newBlock = createNewBlock();}}
> Would log an edit entry {{OP_SET_GENSTAMP_V2}} to bump generation stamp on
> Standby
> while the following line
> {{persistNewBlock(src, pendingFile);}}
> would log another edit entry {{OP_ADD_BLOCK}} to actually add the block on
> Standby.
> Then the race condition is that, imagine Standby has just processed
> {{OP_SET_GENSTAMP_V2}}, but not yet {{OP_ADD_BLOCK}} (if they just happen to
> be in different setment). Now a block report with new generation stamp comes
> in.
> Since the genstamp bump has already been processed, the reported block may
> not be considered as future block. So the guarding logic passes. But
> actually, the block hasn't been added to blockmap, because the second edit is
> yet to be tailed. So, the block then gets added to invalidate block list and
> we saw messages like:
> {code:java}
> BLOCK* addBlock: block XXX on node XXX size XXX does not belong to any file
> {code}
> Even worse, since this IBR is effectively lost, the NameNode has no
> information about this block, until the next full block report. So after a
> failover, the NN marks it as corrupt.
> This issue won't happen though, if both of the edit entries get tailed all
> together, so no IBR processing can happen in between. But in our case, we set
> edit tailing interval to super low (to allow Standby read), so when under
> high workload, there is a much much higher chance that the two entries are
> tailed separately, causing the issue.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
