-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46355/#review129641
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Ship It!

- Jonathan Hurley


On April 19, 2016, 6:04 p.m., Sid Wagle wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46355/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 19, 2016, 6:04 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/java/org/apache/ambari/server/upgrade/UpgradeCatalog240.java
>  097a079 
>   ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/HDFS/2.1.0.2.0/alerts.json 
> 019fa60 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/HDFS/2.1.0.2.0/package/alerts/alert_checkpoint_time.py
>  e165c7b 
>   
> ambari-server/src/test/java/org/apache/ambari/server/upgrade/UpgradeCatalog240Test.java
>  e3e8d35 
> 
> 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