[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-17438?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17845730#comment-17845730
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on HDFS-17438:
---------------------------------------
goiri commented on code in PR #6655:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/6655#discussion_r1597672487
##########
hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/test/GenericTestUtils.java:
##########
@@ -404,6 +404,28 @@ public static void waitFor(final Supplier<Boolean> check,
}
}
+ /**
+ * Wait at least {@code atLeastWaitForMillis} from start to end of the test.
+ *
+ * @param check the test to perform.
+ * @param atLeastWaitForMillis the minimum waiting time from the beginning
+ * to the end of the test.
+ * @throws InterruptedException if the method is interrupted while waiting.
+ */
+ public static <T> T atLeastWaitFor(final Supplier<T> check,
+ long atLeastWaitForMillis) throws InterruptedException {
+ if (atLeastWaitForMillis < 0) {
+ atLeastWaitForMillis = 0;
+ }
+ long st = Time.monotonicNow();
+ T result = check.get();
Review Comment:
I don't think you are waiting at least, you are getting the value and then
waiting.
Either change the method name to execute and wait or actually wait after the
sleep.
> RBF: The newest STANDBY and UNAVAILABLE nn should be the lowest priority.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-17438
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-17438
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jian Zhang
> Assignee: Jian Zhang
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Attachments: HDFS-17438.001.patch
>
>
> At present, when the status of all namenodes in an ns in the router is the
> same, the namenode which is the newest reported will be placed at the top of
> the cache. when the client accesses the ns through the router, it will first
> access the namenode.
> If multiple namenodes in this route are in an active state, or if there are
> namenodes with multiple observer states, the existing logic is not a problem,
> because the newest reported active or observer state namenode have a higher
> probability of being true active or observer compared to the namenode that
> reported active or observer state a long time ago.
> Similarly, the newest reported namenode with a status of standby or
> unavailable has a higher probability of being a standby or unavailable
> namenode compared to the namenode reported with a status of standby or
> unavailable a long time ago. Therefore, the newest nn reported as standby or
> unavailable status should have a lower priority for access, the oldest nn
> reported as standby or unavailable status should have a higher priority for
> access.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
