HDDS-15610. Fix deletedBlocks summary size corruption in SCM#10554
Open
priyeshkaratha wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
HDDS-15610. Fix deletedBlocks summary size corruption in SCM#10554priyeshkaratha wants to merge 1 commit into
priyeshkaratha wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
During an SCM restart or a leader switch, the SCM defaults the summary value to 0. If a decrement operation happens on top of this unpersisted state, the value drops into the negative range.
If the summary value is 0 or less during initializeDataDistribution, the system will fallback to iterating over the deletedTable to accurately recalculate the distribution, instead of relying on the potentially corrupted/unpersisted summary.
What is the link to the Apache JIRA
HDDS-15610
How was this patch tested?
Tested using added unit test and integration test and validated in CI