[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10679?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13925500#comment-13925500
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-10679:
-----------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12633634/HBASE-10679-trunk_v2.patch
against trunk revision .
ATTACHMENT ID: 12633634
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:red}-1 tests included{color}. The patch doesn't appear to include
any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this
patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to
verify this patch.
{color:green}+1 hadoop1.0{color}. The patch compiles against the hadoop
1.0 profile.
{color:green}+1 hadoop1.1{color}. The patch compiles against the hadoop
1.1 profile.
{color:green}+1 javadoc{color}. The javadoc tool did not generate any
warning messages.
{color:green}+1 javac{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of javac compiler warnings.
{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 lineLengths{color}. The patch does not introduce lines
longer than 100
{color:green}+1 site{color}. The mvn site goal succeeds with this patch.
{color:green}+1 core tests{color}. The patch passed unit tests in .
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-protocol.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-thrift.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-client.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop2-compat.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-examples.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-prefix-tree.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-common.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-server.html
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop-compat.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8936//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Both clients get wrong scan results if the first scanner expires and the
> second scanner is created with the same scannerId on the same region
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-10679
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10679
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: regionserver
> Reporter: Feng Honghua
> Assignee: Feng Honghua
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: HBASE-10679-trunk_v1.patch, HBASE-10679-trunk_v2.patch,
> HBASE-10679-trunk_v2.patch, HBASE-10679-trunk_v2.patch
>
>
> The scenario is as below (both Client A and Client B scan against Region R)
> # A opens a scanner SA on R, the scannerId is N, it successfully get its
> first row "a"
> # SA's lease expires and it's removed from scanners
> # B opens a scanner SB on R, the scannerId is N too. it successfully get its
> first row "m"
> # A issues its second scan request with scannerId N, regionserver finds N is
> valid scannerId and the region matches too. (since the region is always
> online on this regionserver and both two scanners are against it), so it
> executes scan request on SB, returns "n" to A -- wrong! (get data from other
> scanner, A expects row something like "b" that follows "a")
> # B issues its second scan request with scannerId N, regionserver also thinks
> it's valid, and executes scan on SB, return "o" to B -- wrong! (should return
> "n" but "n" has been scanned out by A just now)
> The consequence is both clients get wrong scan results:
> # A gets data from scanner created by other client, its own scanner has
> expired and removed
> # B misses data which should be gotten but has been wrongly scanned out by A
> The root cause is scannerId generated by regionserver can't be guaranteed
> unique within regionserver's whole lifecycle, *there is only guarantee that
> scannerIds of scanners that are currently still valid (not expired) are
> unique*, so a same scannerId can present in scanners again after a former
> scanner with this scannerId expires and has been removed from scanners. And
> if the second scanner is against the same region, the bug arises.
> Theoretically, the possibility of above scenario should be very rare(two
> consecutive scans on a same region from two different clients get a same
> scannerId, and the first expires before the second is created), but it does
> can happen, and once it happens, the consequence is severe(all clients
> involved get wrong data), and should be extremely hard to diagnose/debug
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
