[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4282?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13122297#comment-13122297
]
stack commented on HBASE-4282:
------------------------------
On v3, the txids are pretty useless at least out in logs? No harm logging them
I suppose but there is nothing I can infer given a txid? Is that so?
Why this:
{code}
- if (unflushedEntries.get() <= syncedTillHere) {
- Thread.sleep(this.optionalFlushInterval);
- }
+ Thread.sleep(this.optionalFlushInterval);
{code}
Swap these lines on commit?
{code}
+ TEST_UTIL.cleanupTestDir();
+ TEST_UTIL.shutdownMiniCluster();
{code}
This is a good thing to assert:
{code}
+ assertTrue("Need HDFS-826 for this test", log.canGetCurReplicas());
{code}
A similar assertion over in TestLogRolling found an issue in 205 RC1.
Nice test
> Potential data loss in retries of WAL close introduced in HBASE-4222
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-4282
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4282
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.92.0, 0.94.0, 0.90.5
> Reporter: Gary Helmling
> Assignee: Gary Helmling
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 0.92.0, 0.90.5
>
> Attachments: HBASE-4282_0.90_2.patch, HBASE-4282_trunk_2.patch,
> HBASE-4282_trunk_3.patch, HBASE-4282_trunk_prelim.patch
>
>
> The ability to ride over WAL close errors on log rolling added in HBASE-4222
> could lead to missing HLog entries if:
> * A table has DEFERRED_LOG_FLUSH=true
> * There are unflushed WALEdit entries for that table in the current
> SequenceFile writer buffer
> Since the writes were already acknowledged to the client, just ignoring the
> close error to allow for another log roll doesn't seem like the right thing
> to do here.
> We could easily flag this state and only ride over the close error if there
> aren't unflushed entries. This would bring the above condition back to the
> previous behavior of aborting the region server. However, aborting the
> region server in this state is still guaranteeing data loss. Is there
> anything we can do better in this case?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
