[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13272386#comment-13272386
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-5973:
----------------------------------
-1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12526306/hbase-5973.txt
against trunk revision .
+1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags.
+1 tests included. The patch appears to include 6 new or modified tests.
+1 hadoop23. The patch compiles against the hadoop 0.23.x profile.
+1 javadoc. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.
+1 javac. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac
compiler warnings.
+1 findbugs. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs (version 1.3.9)
warnings.
+1 release audit. The applied patch does not increase the total number of
release audit warnings.
-1 core tests. The patch failed these unit tests:
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.TestDrainingServer
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/1828//testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/1828//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/1828//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Add ability for potentially long-running IPC calls to abort if client
> disconnects
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-5973
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5973
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: ipc
> Affects Versions: 0.90.7, 0.92.1, 0.94.0, 0.96.0
> Reporter: Todd Lipcon
> Assignee: Todd Lipcon
> Attachments: hbase-5973.txt, hbase-5973.txt
>
>
> We recently had a cluster issue where a user was submitting scanners with a
> very restrictive filter, and then calling next() with a high scanner caching
> value. The clients would generally time out the next() call and disconnect,
> but the IPC kept running looking to fill the requested number of rows. Since
> this was in the context of MR, the tasks making the calls would retry, and
> the retries wuld be more likely to time out due to contention with the
> previous still-running scanner next() call. Eventually, the system spiraled
> out of control.
> We should add a hook to the IPC system so that RPC calls can check if the
> client has already disconnected. In such a case, the next() call could abort
> processing, given any further work is wasted. I imagine coprocessor
> endpoints, etc, could make good use of this as well.
--
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
