-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46355/#review129475
-----------------------------------------------------------



Do you need to also set these new values on upgrade? I see that you put 
defaults in, but the thresholds will never show in existing configurations.

- Jonathan Hurley


On April 18, 2016, 8:26 p.m., Sid Wagle wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46355/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 18, 2016, 8:26 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Aravindan Vijayan, Dmytro Sen, Jonathan Hurley, 
> and Sumit Mohanty.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-15953
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-15953
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The 'NameNode Last Checkpoint' alert description says "This service-level 
> alert will trigger if the last time that the NameNode performed a checkpoint 
> was too long ago. It will also trigger if the number of uncommitted 
> transactions is beyond a certain threshold."
> 
> But the default alert definition seems to miss the threshold parameters for 
> alerting the number of uncommitted transactions.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/HDFS/2.1.0.2.0/alerts.json 
> fc3e21f 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/HDFS/2.1.0.2.0/package/alerts/alert_checkpoint_time.py
>  71e34e6 
>   
> ambari-server/src/test/python/stacks/2.0.6/HDFS/test_alert_checkpoint_time.py 
> PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46355/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ran 246 tests in 6.541s
> 
> OK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Total run:928
> Total errors:0
> Total failures:0
> OK
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sid Wagle
> 
>

Reply via email to