You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@ozone.apache.org by "Ethan Rose (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2023/01/19 18:14:00 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (HDDS-7785) Improve Handling of Unhealthy Container Replicas in the new RM
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-7785?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17678838#comment-17678838 ]
Ethan Rose commented on HDDS-7785:
----------------------------------
bq. Should we call "replicas whose state doesn't match with the container state" mismatched replicas and leave the unhealthy term to replicas whose
ContainerReplicaProto.State is UNHEALTHY (meaning corrupted, checksum mismatch etc)?
I agree a different term should be used to avoid confusion. This came up as a point of confusion when discussing HDDS-6447 as well, even though unhealthy meaning mismatched was already used in the Legacy RM and was not introduced in that patch.
> Improve Handling of Unhealthy Container Replicas in the new RM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDDS-7785
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-7785
> Project: Apache Ozone
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: SCM
> Affects Versions: 1.3.0
> Reporter: Siddhant Sangwan
> Assignee: Siddhant Sangwan
> Priority: Major
>
> HDDS-6447 changed the handling of unhealthy replicas (replicas whose state doesn't match with the container state) in the legacy RM. This jira adds these changes to the new RM.
> Should we call "replicas whose state doesn't match with the container state" {{mismatched}} replicas and leave the {{unhealthy}} term to replicas whose
> ContainerReplicaProto.State is UNHEALTHY (meaning corrupted, checksum mismatch etc)?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@ozone.apache.org