[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5225?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13780358#comment-13780358
]
Kihwal Lee commented on HDFS-5225:
----------------------------------
Due to HDFS-4797, two BlockScanInfo for different blocks could collide with
each other in blockInfoSet if the last scan time is the same. This can easily
create inconsistencies between blockMap and blockInfoSet. This problem has been
fixed recently by HDFS-5031. Other than this, I cannot find any other reason
for the two data structures going out of sync.
[~ozawa], can you reproduce the problem with HDFS-5031? Your reproducer patch
artificially introduces duplicate entries. That should not happen with proper
synchronization. Other flaws in algorithm may cause wrong records to get
removed or added, but the two data structures should stay in sync after
HDFS-5031.
If we want to make sure this is the case now and also in the future-proof, we
could add sanity checks to addBlockInfo() and delBlockInfo(). For
addBlockInfo(), addition to any data structure should not see a duplicate
entry. For delBlockInfo(), both data structures should contain an entry to be
deleted.
> datanode keeps logging the same 'is no longer in the dataset' message over
> and over again
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-5225
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5225
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: datanode
> Affects Versions: 2.1.1-beta
> Reporter: Roman Shaposhnik
> Assignee: Tsuyoshi OZAWA
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: HDFS-5225.1.patch, HDFS-5225.2.patch,
> HDFS-5225-reproduce.1.txt
>
>
> I was running the usual Bigtop testing on 2.1.1-beta RC1 with the following
> configuration: 4 nodes fully distributed cluster with security on.
> All of a sudden my DN ate up all of the space in /var/log logging the
> following message repeatedly:
> {noformat}
> 2013-09-18 20:51:12,046 INFO
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockPoolSliceScanner:
> BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853:blk_1073742189_1369 is no longer
> in the dataset
> {noformat}
> It wouldn't answer to a jstack and jstack -F ended up being useless.
> Here's what I was able to find in the NameNode logs regarding this block ID:
> {noformat}
> fgrep -rI 'blk_1073742189' hadoop-hdfs-namenode-ip-10-224-158-152.log
> 2013-09-18 18:03:16,972 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.StateChange: BLOCK*
> allocateBlock:
> /user/jenkins/testAppendInputWedSep18180222UTC2013/test4.fileWedSep18180222UTC2013._COPYING_.
> BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853
> blk_1073742189_1369{blockUCState=UNDER_CONSTRUCTION, primaryNodeIndex=-1,
> replicas=[ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.83.107.80:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.34.74.206:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.224.158.152:1004|RBW]]}
> 2013-09-18 18:03:17,222 INFO BlockStateChange: BLOCK* addStoredBlock:
> blockMap updated: 10.224.158.152:1004 is added to
> blk_1073742189_1369{blockUCState=UNDER_CONSTRUCTION, primaryNodeIndex=-1,
> replicas=[ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.83.107.80:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.34.74.206:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.224.158.152:1004|RBW]]} size 0
> 2013-09-18 18:03:17,222 INFO BlockStateChange: BLOCK* addStoredBlock:
> blockMap updated: 10.34.74.206:1004 is added to
> blk_1073742189_1369{blockUCState=UNDER_CONSTRUCTION, primaryNodeIndex=-1,
> replicas=[ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.83.107.80:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.34.74.206:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.224.158.152:1004|RBW]]} size 0
> 2013-09-18 18:03:17,224 INFO BlockStateChange: BLOCK* addStoredBlock:
> blockMap updated: 10.83.107.80:1004 is added to
> blk_1073742189_1369{blockUCState=UNDER_CONSTRUCTION, primaryNodeIndex=-1,
> replicas=[ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.83.107.80:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.34.74.206:1004|RBW],
> ReplicaUnderConstruction[10.224.158.152:1004|RBW]]} size 0
> 2013-09-18 18:03:17,899 INFO
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.FSNamesystem:
> updatePipeline(block=BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853:blk_1073742189_1369,
> newGenerationStamp=1370, newLength=1048576, newNodes=[10.83.107.80:1004,
> 10.34.74.206:1004, 10.224.158.152:1004],
> clientName=DFSClient_NONMAPREDUCE_-450304083_1)
> 2013-09-18 18:03:17,904 INFO
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.FSNamesystem:
> updatePipeline(BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853:blk_1073742189_1369)
> successfully to
> BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853:blk_1073742189_1370
> 2013-09-18 18:03:18,540 INFO
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.FSNamesystem:
> updatePipeline(block=BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853:blk_1073742189_1370,
> newGenerationStamp=1371, newLength=2097152, newNodes=[10.83.107.80:1004,
> 10.34.74.206:1004, 10.224.158.152:1004],
> clientName=DFSClient_NONMAPREDUCE_-450304083_1)
> 2013-09-18 18:03:18,548 INFO
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.FSNamesystem:
> updatePipeline(BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853:blk_1073742189_1370)
> successfully to
> BP-1884637155-10.224.158.152-1379524544853:blk_1073742189_1371
> 2013-09-18 18:03:26,150 INFO BlockStateChange: BLOCK* addToInvalidates:
> blk_1073742189_1371 10.83.107.80:1004 10.34.74.206:1004 10.224.158.152:1004
> 2013-09-18 18:03:26,847 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.StateChange: BLOCK*
> InvalidateBlocks: ask 10.34.74.206:1004 to delete [blk_1073742178_1359,
> blk_1073742183_1362, blk_1073742184_1363, blk_1073742186_1366,
> blk_1073742188_1368, blk_1073742189_1371]
> 2013-09-18 18:03:29,848 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.StateChange: BLOCK*
> InvalidateBlocks: ask 10.224.158.152:1004 to delete [blk_1073742177_1353,
> blk_1073742178_1359, blk_1073742179_1355, blk_1073742180_1356,
> blk_1073742181_1358, blk_1073742182_1361, blk_1073742185_1364,
> blk_1073742187_1367, blk_1073742188_1368, blk_1073742189_1371]
> 2013-09-18 18:03:29,848 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.StateChange: BLOCK*
> InvalidateBlocks: ask 10.83.107.80:1004 to delete [blk_1073742177_1353,
> blk_1073742178_1359, blk_1073742179_1355, blk_1073742180_1356,
> blk_1073742181_1358, blk_1073742182_1361, blk_1073742183_1362,
> blk_1073742184_1363, blk_1073742185_1364, blk_1073742186_1366,
> blk_1073742187_1367, blk_1073742188_1368, blk_1073742189_1371]
> {noformat}
> This seems to suggest that the block was successfully deleted, but then DN
> got into a death spiral inside of a scanner.
> I can keep the cluster running for a few days if anybody is willing to take a
> look. Ask me for creds via a personal email.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
