[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16782476#comment-16782476
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-21487:
Results for branch branch-2
[build #1722 on
builds.a.o|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/1722/]:
(x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}*
details (if available):
(x) {color:red}-1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/1722//General_Nightly_Build_Report/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop2 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop2)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/1722//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop2)/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/1722//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop3)/]
(x) {color:red}-1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
(x) {color:red}-1 client integration test{color}
-- Something went wrong with this stage, [check relevant console
output|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/1722//console].
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.3.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16782472#comment-16782472
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-21487:
Results for branch branch-2.2
[build #77 on
builds.a.o|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.2/77/]:
(x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}*
details (if available):
(x) {color:red}-1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.2/77//General_Nightly_Build_Report/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop2 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop2)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.2/77//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop2)/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2.2/77//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop3)/]
(/) {color:green}+1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
(/) {color:green}+1 client integration test{color}
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.3.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16782365#comment-16782365
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-21487:
Results for branch master
[build #833 on
builds.a.o|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/833/]: (x)
*{color:red}-1 overall{color}*
details (if available):
(x) {color:red}-1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/833//General_Nightly_Build_Report/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop2 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop2)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/833//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop2)/]
(x) {color:red}-1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/833//JDK8_Nightly_Build_Report_(Hadoop3)/]
(x) {color:red}-1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
(x) {color:red}-1 client integration test{color}
-- Something went wrong with this stage, [check relevant console
output|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/833//console].
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.3.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16781341#comment-16781341
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (/) *{color:green}+1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
14s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
21s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
11s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 18m
9s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
57s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
9s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 2m
20s{color} | {color:blue} hbase-server in branch-2 has 1 extant Findbugs
warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
0s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
0s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 18m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 18m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 18m
21s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 2m
2s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
47s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
9m 23s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.7.4
or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green}
1m 45s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 7m
1s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
17s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
38s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
30s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}146m
16s{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}237m 13s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12960706/HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16780719#comment-16780719
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
46s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
15s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
39s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
43s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
51s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 2m
8s{color} | {color:blue} hbase-server in branch-2 has 1 extant Findbugs
warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
59s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
14s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
51s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
11s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 14m
11s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 14m
11s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
42s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
47s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
8m 11s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.7.4
or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green}
1m 30s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
57s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
31s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
17s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}304m 32s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
16s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}382m 33s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hbase.tool.TestSecureLoadIncrementalHFiles |
| | hadoop.hbase.client.TestFromClientSide3 |
| | hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.TestSCPWithReplicasWithoutZKCoordinated |
| | hadoop.hbase.client.TestSnapshotTemporaryDirectoryWithRegionReplicas |
| | hadoop.hbase.replication.TestMasterReplication |
|
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16780359#comment-16780359 ] Guanghao Zhang commented on HBASE-21487: +1. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.2.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch > > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16780347#comment-16780347 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- Addressed the comments in the 06 patch.Thanks [~zghaobac] > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.2.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.06.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch > > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=1647#comment-1647
]
Guanghao Zhang commented on HBASE-21487:
{code:java}
preflightChecks(env, null/* No table checks; if changing peers, table can be
online */);
this.modifiedTableDescriptor = newTableDescriptor;
{code}
The preflightChecks should after this.modifiedTableDescriptor =
newTableDescriptor; As the check will call getTableName and it need
modifiedTableDescriptor.
{code:java}
private void initilize() {code}
Add two parameter unmodifiedTableDescriptor and shouldCheckDescriptor for it?
And no need to assign them again.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=1640#comment-1640
]
Guanghao Zhang commented on HBASE-21487:
{code:java}
if (shouldCheckDescriptor) {
2653submitProcedure(new
ModifyTableProcedure(procedureExecutor.getEnvironment(),
2654newDescriptor, latch, oldDescriptor, shouldCheckDescriptor));
2655} else {
2656submitProcedure(
2657new ModifyTableProcedure(procedureExecutor.getEnvironment(),
newDescriptor, latch));
2658}
{code}
submitProcedure( new ModifyTableProcedure(procedureExecutor.getEnvironment(),
newDescriptor, latch, shouldCheckDescriptor)); directly? No need to check
shouldCheckDescriptor.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16775206#comment-16775206
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (/) *{color:green}+1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
24s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
11s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
12s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
44s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
44s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
7s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
1s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
59s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
15s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 14m
15s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 14m
15s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
45s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
39s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
8m 20s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.7.4
or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green}
1m 30s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
34s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
0s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
31s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
21s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}124m
34s{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
19s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}201m 51s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12959755/HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck hbaseanti checkstyle compile cc
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16775046#comment-16775046 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- Thanks for reviewing [~allan163], addressed the above comment in the .05 patch. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.2.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.05.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch > > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16774856#comment-16774856 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- Thanks for reviewing [~allan163], will address the above comment and submit the patch. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.2.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch, > HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch > > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16774845#comment-16774845
]
Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21487:
{code}
+ public ModifyTableProcedure(final MasterProcedureEnv env,
+ final TableDescriptor newTableDescriptor, final ProcedurePrepareLatch
latch,
+ final TableDescriptor oldTableDescriptor, final boolean
shouldCheckDescriptor)
+ throws HBaseIOException {
+this(env, newTableDescriptor, latch);
+this.unmodifiedTableDescriptor = oldTableDescriptor;
+this.shouldCheckDescriptor = shouldCheckDescriptor;
+ }
+
{code}
Constructor with less arguments should call constructors with more
arguments,and extra arguments use default values, not the way around like in
the patch. Except this, the patch looks great.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Assignee: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16766346#comment-16766346
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
19s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 1m
4s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 5m
39s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
36s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
50s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
57s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
24s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
4s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
16s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
14s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 14m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 14m
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
48s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
40s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
8m 19s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.7.4
or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green}
1m 28s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
35s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
3s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
33s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
16s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}233m 29s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
1s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}314m 4s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAdmin1 |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12958397/HBASE-21487.branch-2.04.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16751361#comment-16751361
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
14s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 1m
2s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 5m
55s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
44s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
51s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
55s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
22s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
5s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
17s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
57s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 13m
58s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 13m
58s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 13m
58s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
46s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
41s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
8m 21s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.7.4
or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green}
1m 28s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
0s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
31s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
14s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}125m 43s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
6s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}205m 48s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12956151/HBASE-21487.branch-2.03.patch
|
| Optional Tests | dupname asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs
shadedjars hadoopcheck hbaseanti checkstyle compile cc hbaseprotoc |
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16746487#comment-16746487
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
13s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
22s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
3s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
2s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
45s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
48s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
1s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
57s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m
57s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 14m
4s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 14m
4s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 14m
4s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 0m
29s{color} | {color:red} hbase-client: The patch generated 1 new + 0 unchanged
- 0 fixed = 1 total (was 0) {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 1m
8s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 1 new + 153 unchanged
- 0 fixed = 154 total (was 153) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
43s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
8m 17s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.7.4
or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green}
1m 27s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
29s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
59s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
32s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
20s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}125m
11s{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
7s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}201m 23s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue |
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16746322#comment-16746322
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
27s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 5m
26s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 19m
31s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 2m
14s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
41s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 6m
55s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
11s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
54s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 19m
41s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 19m
41s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 19m
41s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 0m
39s{color} | {color:red} hbase-client: The patch generated 1 new + 0 unchanged
- 0 fixed = 1 total (was 0) {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 1m
24s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 1 new + 153
unchanged - 0 fixed = 154 total (was 153) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 4m
48s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
10m 41s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop
2.7.4 or 3.0.0. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green}
1m 41s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 7m
0s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
5s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
39s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 3m
31s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}131m 37s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 1m
7s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}230m 58s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hbase.client.TestAsyncTableGetMultiThreaded |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
|
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745794#comment-16745794
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
13s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 6s{color}
| {color:red} HBASE-21487 does not apply to branch-2. Rebase required? Wrong
Branch? See https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.8.0/precommit-patchnames
for help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955336/HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch
|
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/15628/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.8.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.02.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745791#comment-16745791
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
13s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 5s{color}
| {color:red} HBASE-21487 does not apply to branch-2. Rebase required? Wrong
Branch? See https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.8.0/precommit-patchnames
for help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955335/HBASE-21487.branch-2.002.patch
|
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/15627/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.8.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.002.patch,
> HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745785#comment-16745785
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
13s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 6s{color}
| {color:red} HBASE-21487 does not apply to branch-2. Rebase required? Wrong
Branch? See https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.8.0/precommit-patchnames
for help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955334/HBASE-21487-branch-2.002.patch
|
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/15626/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.8.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487-branch-2.002.patch,
> HBASE-21487-branch-2.v2.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745778#comment-16745778
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
14s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 6s{color}
| {color:red} HBASE-21487 does not apply to branch-2. Rebase required? Wrong
Branch? See https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.8.0/precommit-patchnames
for help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955331/HBASE-21487-branch-2.v2.patch
|
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/15625/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.8.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 2.2.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21487-branch-2.v2.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
>
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745774#comment-16745774 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- I missed to add newly added file.Addressed the same with v2 patch. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.2.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-21487-branch-2.v2.patch, HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch > > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745147#comment-16745147
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21487:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m
12s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
23s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m
10s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 13m
21s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
21s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green} 3m
40s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
27s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m
42s{color} | {color:green} branch-2 passed {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m
15s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} mvninstall {color} | {color:red} 2m
29s{color} | {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} compile {color} | {color:red} 0m
28s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} cc {color} | {color:red} 0m 28s{color} |
{color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javac {color} | {color:red} 0m 28s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red} 1m
6s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 1 new + 153 unchanged
- 0 fixed = 154 total (was 153) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} shadedjars {color} | {color:red} 2m
40s{color} | {color:red} patch has 20 errors when building our shaded
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 1m
36s{color} | {color:red} The patch causes 20 errors with Hadoop v2.7.4. {color}
|
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 3m
17s{color} | {color:red} The patch causes 20 errors with Hadoop v3.0.0. {color}
|
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:red} 0m
30s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 0m
29s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javadoc {color} | {color:red} 0m
28s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server generated 1 new + 1 unchanged - 0 fixed =
2 total (was 1) {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m
31s{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 0m 31s{color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
15s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 56m 49s{color} |
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.05.0-ce Server=17.05.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:42ca976 |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-21487 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12955245/HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch
|
| Optional
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745051#comment-16745051 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- Ping [~allan163], kindly review the patch. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.2.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch > > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16745047#comment-16745047 ] Pankaj Kumar commented on HBASE-21487: -- Attached patch on behalf of [~arshiya9414]. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.2.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-21487.branch-2.patch > > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16713979#comment-16713979
]
Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21487:
{quote}
May be we can pass the old_table_descriptor also in ModifyTableProcedure. In
MODIFY_TABLE_PREPARE step, we can compare the old_table_descriptor with
current_table_descriptor, if they are not same then we can throw exception ...
{quote}
I think you are right, it is better to compare table descriptors directly.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16713947#comment-16713947 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- [~allan163], any thoughts on the issue? > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16708402#comment-16708402
]
Bhupendra Kumar Jain commented on HBASE-21487:
--
{quote}record the seqenceID of the current tabledescriptor on FS(and pass to
ModifyTableProcedure),
{quote}
I think , SequenceID concept is specific to FSTableDescriptors implementation
which is one of the impl of TableDescriptors interface. So IMO we should not
depend on sequenceID here for comparison.
May be we can pass the old_table_descriptor also in ModifyTableProcedure. In
MODIFY_TABLE_PREPARE step, we can compare the old_table_descriptor with
current_table_descriptor, if they are not same then we can throw exception ...
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16706736#comment-16706736
]
Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21487:
{quote}
>From the above solution only one operation will be succeeded because we will
>abort one of the procedure if ID is not equal.Is this acceptable behavior?
{quote}
Yes, I think it is acceptable
{quote}
Or else after checking the sequence ID of descriptor in prepare state,if its
not equal can we just throw exception and retry again by building new
descriptor and submitting procedure again?
{quote}
Since there is only one kind of procedure(ModifyTableProcedure) here, when it
is begin to execute, it doesn't know how to build the new descriptor, unless we
record some info into the procedure.
> Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-21487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0
>Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen
>Priority: Major
>
> Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect
> result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family
> during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client
> is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be
> cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending
> on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table
> descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in
> HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock.
> *Steps to reproduce*
> 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1'
> 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table
> 't' concurrently.
> *Expected Result*
> Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3)
> *Actual Result*
> Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16706726#comment-16706726 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- [~allan163] Do you have any suggestions on the issue? > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16700289#comment-16700289 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- >From the above solution only one operation will be succeeded because we will >abort one of the procedure if ID is not equal.Is this acceptable behavior? Or >else after checking the sequence ID of descriptor in prepare state,if its not >equal can we just throw exception and retry again by building new descriptor >and submitting procedure again? > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16699180#comment-16699180 ] Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21487: I think we could record the seqenceID of the current tabledescriptor on FS(and pass to ModifyTableProcedure), then in prepare state of ModifyTableProcedure, we can check whether if the sequenceID of the current table descriptor from FS is different from the ID we recorded. If they are not equal, that means someone has already changed the descriptor, we can abort the modify procedure if so. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16698982#comment-16698982 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- No, I'm not preparing any patch as of now,I was just thinking about the solutions and did not get any clear approach. when do we release the table lock if we grab the lock before constructing the new table descriptor? As per my understanding, when we release the lock before submitting the procedure, the issue wont be solved as the descriptor will override and it will lead to same unexpected results.If we release after submitting the procedure,the ModifyTableProcedure won't start until the table lock is released.Is this right? > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16697326#comment-16697326 ] Allan Yang commented on HBASE-21487: Yes, it is a problem, in 2.x, we only have ModifyTableProcedure, and the Tabledescriptor is passed in with no lock. I think maybe we should acquire the table exclusive lock before constructing the new table descriptor to ensure we are using the newest version. Are you preparing a patch, [~arshiya9414]? > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16697219#comment-16697219 ] Syeda Arshiya Tabreen commented on HBASE-21487: --- Issue is that new descriptor is being built before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in HMaster class.In order to maintain the consistency ,the new descriptor can be built inside ModifyTableProcedure class but the class expects new descriptor and also the coprocessor hooks are maintained in HMaster class to which the solution cannot be met or should we make the design as like earlier with many procedures(AddColumn/ModifyColumn/DeleteColumn) which will solve the problem? > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21487) Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16689616#comment-16689616 ] stack commented on HBASE-21487: --- Agree that the two procedures should aggregate rather than be an either/or. You have a suggested fix [~arshiya9414]? Thanks. > Concurrent modify table ops can lead to unexpected results > -- > > Key: HBASE-21487 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21487 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug >Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 2.0.0 >Reporter: Syeda Arshiya Tabreen >Priority: Major > > Concurrent modifyTable or add/delete/modify columnFamily leads to incorrect > result. After HBASE-18893, The behavior of add/delete/modify column family > during concurrent operation is changed compare to branch-1.When one client > is adding cf2 and another one cf3 .. In branch-1 final result will be > cf1,cf2,cf3 but now either cf1,cf2 OR cf1,cf3 will be the outcome depending > on which ModifyTableProcedure executed finally.Its because new table > descriptor is constructed before submitting the ModifyTableProcedure in > HMaster class and its not guarded by any lock. > *Steps to reproduce* > 1.Create table 't' with column family 'f1' > 2.Client-1 and Client-2 requests to add column family 'f2' and 'f3' on table > 't' concurrently. > *Expected Result* > Table should have three column families(f1,f2,f3) > *Actual Result* > Table 't' will have column family either (f1,f2) or (f1,f3) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
