-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 594
HDDS-10652. EC Reconstruction fails with "IOException: None of the block data have checksum" after upgrade #6520
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
dd02519
HDDS-10652. [Upgrade][EC] Reconstruction failing with "java.io.IOExce…
siddhantsangwan 1b7cdc9
address review comments related to logging and not throwing exception
siddhantsangwan 52c76ff
remove foundStripeChecksum boolean, retain logging
siddhantsangwan aabc3b0
add unit test
siddhantsangwan 2b035a6
minor log level correction
siddhantsangwan File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The original logic had:
So that
checksumBlockDatais only set ifhasStripeChecksum())returns true. With the change you have made,checksumBlockDatawill be set ifhasChecksumData(), but it might not have stripeChecksum in it.Then at line 155 it will enter the IF block and at line 174 I am not sure what will happen if stripeCheckSum is missing.
All the IF statement at 155 does is copy in the stripeChecksum if it exists. So if it does not exist, there is no point in going into that IF at all, as we will just be copying the original chunkChecksum out and back in again.
Following on from this - we only set
checksumBlockDataif there is a stripeChecksum, then you can also remove thefoundStripeChecksumboolean aschecksumBlockData != nullmeans the same thing.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, so what you're saying is that there's no point in going inside the if block at line 155 if
stripeChecksumisn't found because that code is only settingstripeChecksum. So overall, the only change we need here is to log instead of throw at line 184. Right?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea, that's it.