[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6995?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14150948#comment-14150948
]
Uma Maheswara Rao G commented on HDFS-6995:
-------------------------------------------
Thanks a lot Vinay for update on patch!
Here I have some few nits:
- .
{code}
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
+ String src = "/test-" + i;
+ // Create the file with client machine
+ HdfsFileStatus fileStatus = namesystem.startFile(src, perm,
+ clientMachine, clientMachine, EnumSet.of(CreateFlag.CREATE), true,
+ REPLICATION_FACTOR, DEFAULT_BLOCK_SIZE, null);
+ LocatedBlock locatedBlock = nameNodeRpc.addBlock(src, clientMachine,
+ null, null, fileStatus.getFileId(), null);
+
+ assertEquals("First datanode should be rack local", "/RACK2",
+ locatedBlock.getLocations()[0].getNetworkLocation());
+
+ nameNodeRpc.abandonBlock(locatedBlock.getBlock(), fileStatus.getFileId(),
+ src, clientMachine);
+ }
{code}
Seems like this peice of code is duplicate except assertion. Could we refactor
a bit to avoid this?
- Test name should say thsi test for Default placement policy?
- .
{code}
perm = new PermissionStatus("TestNamenodeRetryCache", null,
+ FsPermission.getDefault());
{code}
Seems like copies this line from other tests. changing string name to current
test will looks good. But not a big deal.
> Block should be placed in the client's 'rack-local' node if 'client-local'
> node is not available
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-6995
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6995
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: namenode
> Affects Versions: 2.5.0
> Reporter: Vinayakumar B
> Assignee: Vinayakumar B
> Attachments: HDFS-6995-001.patch, HDFS-6995-002.patch,
> HDFS-6995-003.patch, HDFS-6995-004.patch, HDFS-6995-005.patch
>
>
> HDFS cluster is rack aware.
> Client is in different node than of datanode,
> but Same rack contains one or more datanodes.
> In this case first preference should be given to select 'rack-local' node.
> Currently, since no Node in clusterMap corresponds to client's location,
> blockplacement policy choosing a *random* node as local node and proceeding
> for further placements.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
