Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(2nd round) fix under fs and glusterfs configuration issues #630

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 27, 2015

Conversation

rootfs
Copy link
Contributor

@rootfs rootfs commented Jan 26, 2015

This is an enhanced fix to #623. Previous fix failed on TestDFSIO test because in that test, the fs.defaultFS property is already set. If so, then avoid overriding this property. This new fix passed the tests.

When tachyon is used for MapReduce jobs, under fs may not be properly initialized.
This fix is to set those properties before under fs initialize() is called. If the properties are already set in core-site.xml, then don't overwrite them.

On my glutster setup, a wordcount test was run to validate this patch. Separately, @pfxuan validated part of the fix on his setup using orangefs as under fs.

The core-site.xml in use can be found at http://pastebin.com/WuR6Xn7v

The wordcount test output can be found at http://pastebin.com/aJJVSBK9

fix gluster related issues

Signed-off-by: rootfs <hchen@redhat.com>
@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/Tachyon-Pull-Request-Builder/2624/
Test PASSed.

haoyuan added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2015
(2nd round) fix under fs and glusterfs configuration issues
@haoyuan haoyuan merged commit d8c39b8 into Alluxio:master Jan 27, 2015
@haoyuan
Copy link
Contributor

haoyuan commented Jan 27, 2015

Thanks!

@haoyuan
Copy link
Contributor

haoyuan commented Jan 27, 2015

@rootfs
Copy link
Contributor Author

rootfs commented Jan 27, 2015

@haoyuan not sure what is the problem but the test running well on my side
http://pastebin.com/izx3J7r3

@rootfs
Copy link
Contributor Author

rootfs commented Jan 27, 2015

@haoyuan Run another test, all tests passed.

Regarding this failed test, the assert failure is that the usedbytes were expected to be 0. But with other tests creating tables on workers, the usedbytes could be non-zero.

public void deleteFileTest() throws IOException {
String uniqPath = TestUtils.uniqPath();
List workers = sTfs.getWorkersInfo();
Assert.assertEquals(1, workers.size());
Assert.assertEquals(WORKER_CAPACITY_BYTES, workers.get(0).getCapacityBytes());
Assert.assertEquals(0, workers.get(0).getUsedBytes()); <--- failed assert

@rootfs rootfs mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants