Conversation
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
The unit -1 is in TestBlockRecoveryCauseStandbyNameNodeCrash, which is unrelated to this DiskBalancer change. |
|
Rebased branch is already clean, and |
|
Pushed empty commit |
82ac70a to
f7b1341
Compare
|
Rebased this onto current apache/trunk, removed the old Trigger CI-only history, and force-pushed it back as a single clean JIRA commit. Local validation passed with JAVA_HOME=/opt/homebrew/opt/openjdk@17/libexec/openjdk.jdk/Contents/Home /opt/homebrew/bin/mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/tmp/codex-m2 test -pl hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs -am -Dtest=TestNodePlan -DskipTests=false (5 tests, 0 failures). |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
CI is green on the current head, and this one still has not had a human review. @Hexiaoqiao @ZanderXu, when you have a moment, could you please take a look? Happy to make any follow-up changes. |
|
CI is still green on the current head, and this one is still waiting on human review. @hfutatzhanghb @Hexiaoqiao, when you have a moment, could you please take a look? Happy to make any follow-up changes. |
|
CI is still green on the current head, and this one is still waiting on HDFS review. @hfutatzhanghb @Hexiaoqiao, when you have a moment, could you please take a look? Happy to make any follow-up changes. |
1 similar comment
|
CI is still green on the current head, and this one is still waiting on HDFS review. @hfutatzhanghb @Hexiaoqiao, when you have a moment, could you please take a look? Happy to make any follow-up changes. |
|
Applied the reviewer suggestion to only propagate |
|
LGTM.+1 |
|
Rebased this branch onto current |
7c5e8e9 to
8d4fcc3
Compare
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
No code changes here. I reran the Build workflow to refresh the red |
|
Pushed an empty |
|
Reran the existing |
|
No code changes here. I reran the existing fork-side |
bfab759 to
a281c09
Compare
|
No code changes here. I reran the current head again on July 12, 2026 to refresh the stale red GitHub Actions lane. The rerun still failed in the shared This PR already has an approval on the current head. If it otherwise looks good, @hfutatzhanghb @Hexiaoqiao, could one of you please take another look when you have a moment? Happy to make any follow-up changes. |
|
No code changes here. This PR is still approved on the current head, and the remaining red GitHub Actions lane is the stale/shared failure path we already called out on July 12, 2026. If it otherwise looks good, @hfutatzhanghb @Hexiaoqiao, could one of you please take another look when you have a moment? Happy to make any follow-up changes. |
|
No code changes here. I reran the existing fork-side |
|
No code changes here. I reran the fork-side |
|
No code changes here. This PR is still approved on the current head, and the remaining red GitHub Actions lane is still the unrelated shared failure path already called out on July 21, 2026. If it otherwise looks good, @hfutatzhanghb @Hexiaoqiao, could one of you please take another look when you have a moment? Happy to make any follow-up changes. |
a281c09 to
4db1474
Compare
|
Rebased this branch onto current apache/trunk on August 4, 2026 and force-pushed the refreshed single commit. No source changes beyond the rebase in this update. The last focused local validation still recorded on this branch is |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
No code changes here since the August 4, 2026 rebase onto current On the refreshed head, Apache Yetus is green, If there is nothing else you would like changed here, this looks ready for merge once that external Build signal is no longer a blocker. |
|
No code changes in this update. I reran the fork-side GitHub Build workflow on the current head so the earlier infrastructure-style failure gets a fresh signal; Apache Yetus and |
|
All checks are green on the current head now, and this PR is still approved. @hfutatzhanghb, when you have a moment, could you please take another look for merge? Happy to make any follow-up changes if needed. |
|
All checks are still green on the current head as of August 9, 2026, and this PR is still approved. @hfutatzhanghb, when you have a moment, could you please take another look for merge? Happy to make any follow-up changes if needed. |
|
All checks are still green on the current head as of August 12, 2026, and this PR is still approved. @hfutatzhanghb, when you have a moment, could you please take another look for merge? Happy to make any follow-up changes if needed. |
|
All checks are green and the approval is still current. @hfutatzhanghb, when you have a moment, could you merge this or let me know what remains? I am happy to make any follow-up changes. |
|
All checks remain green and the approval is still current. @Hexiaoqiao, is there anything else needed before this can merge? I am happy to make any follow-up changes. |
4db1474 to
1232d9b
Compare
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Hi @Hexiaoqiao @slfan1989 @pan3793, HDFS-17872 (DiskBalancer tolerancePercentage) has been maintained on trunk since March. Jenkins flaked with 'cannot be built' last time; I can push an empty commit to retrigger. Review welcome on PlanCommand and the test. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
35cad90 to
4248949
Compare
|
Jenkins build 12 timed out after four hours and exited 143 while running the HDFS module tests, with no patch-specific failure in the console. I pushed a no-code CI refresh on c6e5599; the earlier GitHub Build passed. Ready for the new CI run. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
c6e5599 to
1fe2478
Compare
|
Rebased cleanly onto current trunk at |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
1fe2478 to
08c0451
Compare
|
Rebased onto trunk |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
4 participants
Summary
dfs.disk.balancer.block.tolerance.percentis documented and used on the DataNode when executing a plan, but the plan command did not set tolerance percentage on plan steps. So the value sent to the DataNode was effectively the step default (0) unless the DataNode fell back to its own config. This change reads the config in the plan command and setstolerancePercenton each step so the plan propagated to the DataNode uses the same value.Change
setPlanParams(), readdfs.disk.balancer.block.tolerance.percentfrom configuration (default 10) and callstep.setTolerancePercent(tolerancePercent)for each step in each plan. So generated plans include tolerance and the DataNode receives it (it already usesstep.getTolerancePercent()when building work items).testPlanStepTolerancePercentInJson(): build a NodePlan with a MoveStep that hassetTolerancePercent(15), serialize to JSON, parse back, and assert the step’sgetTolerancePercent()is 15 (HDFS-17872).JIRA
Fixes HDFS-17872
For code changes:
AI Tooling
Contains content generated by Codex.
How was this patch tested?
Earlier commands above are historical evidence, where present. Current rebase validation passed
git diff --check; fresh hosted CI is running. Focused Java validation is reported separately when complete.Validated repair head
08c0451b(2026-09-19)The five
TestNodePlantests pass in a Java 17/Maven 3.9.15 container; these cover plan serialization and do not add a new end-to-end DiskBalancer proof.mvn -B -ntp -pl hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs -am -Dtest=TestNodePlan -Dsurefire.failIfNoSpecifiedTests=false -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=false testThe reactor completed successfully and Surefire reported 5 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skipped.
git diff --checkalso passes. Hosted CI for this head remains separate.