[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13997759#comment-13997759
]
Chen He commented on HDFS-6250:
-------------------------------
Hi [~djp], a block will not be considered as a good candidate in that method.
However, in this test case, no block on rack0 is good. Should the balancer keep
node0 always over-utilized (assume it is caused by balancer.id file)? There
should be priority for the data block moving policies. I will double check it
today.
> 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)
