[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5590?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13837193#comment-13837193
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-5590:
---------------------------------

{color:green}+1 overall{color}.  Here are the results of testing the latest 
attachment 
  http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12616626/HDFS-5590.001.patch
  against trunk revision .

    {color:green}+1 @author{color}.  The patch does not contain any @author 
tags.

    {color:green}+1 tests included{color}.  The patch appears to include 2 new 
or modified test files.

    {color:green}+1 javac{color}.  The applied patch does not increase the 
total number of javac compiler warnings.

    {color:green}+1 javadoc{color}.  The javadoc tool did not generate any 
warning messages.

    {color:green}+1 eclipse:eclipse{color}.  The patch built with 
eclipse:eclipse.

    {color:green}+1 findbugs{color}.  The patch does not introduce any new 
Findbugs (version 1.3.9) warnings.

    {color:green}+1 release audit{color}.  The applied patch does not increase 
the total number of release audit warnings.

    {color:green}+1 core tests{color}.  The patch passed unit tests in 
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs.

    {color:green}+1 contrib tests{color}.  The patch passed contrib unit tests.

Test results: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/5616//testReport/
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/5616//console

This message is automatically generated.

> Block ID and generation stamp may be reused when persistBlocks is set to false
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-5590
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5590
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.2.0
>            Reporter: Jing Zhao
>            Assignee: Jing Zhao
>         Attachments: HDFS-5590.000.patch, HDFS-5590.001.patch
>
>
> In a cluster with non-HA setup and dfs.persist.blocks set to false, we may 
> have data loss in the following case:
> # client creates file1 and requests a block from NN and get blk_id1_gs1
> # client writes blk_id1_gs1 to DN
> # NN is restarted and because persistBlocks is false, blk_id1_gs1 may not be 
> persisted in disk
> # another client creates file2 and NN will allocate a new block using the 
> same block id blk_id1_gs1 since block ID and generation stamp are both 
> increased sequentially.
> Now we may have two versions (file1 and file2) of the blk_id1_gs1 (same id, 
> same gs) in the system. It will case data loss.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Reply via email to