[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13998472#comment-13998472
]
Junping Du commented on HDFS-6250:
----------------------------------
bq. Should the balancer keep node0 always over-utilized (assume it is caused by
balancer.id file)?
Yes. That's true. Balancer could end up (after ~5 time iterations) with cluster
unbalanced when no block can be moved due to reliability reason. The trade off
here we assume is data reliability should always get first priority. One
purpose of test we design here is for verifying this. Make sense?
> TestBalancerWithNodeGroup.testBalancerWithRackLocality fails
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-6250
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6250
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Kihwal Lee
> Assignee: Chen He
> Attachments: HDFS-6250-v2.patch, HDFS-6250-v3.patch, HDFS-6250.patch,
> test_log.txt
>
>
> It was seen in https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HDFS-Build/6669/
> {panel}
> java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<1800> but was:<1810>
> at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:93)
> at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:647)
> at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:128)
> at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:147)
> at org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.balancer.TestBalancerWithNodeGroup
> .testBalancerWithRackLocality(TestBalancerWithNodeGroup.java:253)
> {panel}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
