Deleting a directory failed because of rename

[gp1314]

Alluxio Version: 2.9.3

Describe the bug

• Business logic

1. write A/B/01 file
2. rename A/ to C/
3. Occasionally A/B is found to exist in ufs
4. delete A/ ，throw exception DirectoryNotEmptyException: Failed to delete 1 paths from the under file system: A/B (UFS dir not in sync. Sync UFS, or delete with unchecked flag.)

• Key configuration

  alluxio.user.file.writetype.default= ASYNC_THROUGH
  alluxio.user.file.persistence.initial.wait.time=0
  alluxio.user.file.persist.on.rename=false

• Reason

1. Since the write is ASYNC_THROUGH, the asynchronous synchronization to ufs begins after the write is finished
2. When the client writes a rename file, the asynchronous synchronization task may still be executed by the jobworker
3. The rename operation lists the files in A/ directory，and copy A/B to C/B ，and delete A/B
4. The asynchronous synchronization task may fail. Trying again
5. The synchronous task of the job worker will create A/B directories and copy data to the UFS. If the data copy fails, the A/B directories will not be deleted, resulting in the A/B directories not existing in the Alluxio metadata but still being present on the UFS.
6. When the client lists, it will synchronize directory A from the UFS to Alluxio metadata. If it finds that directory A should not exist and attempts to delete it, but directory A still contains directory B, which does not exist in Alluxio but exists in the UFS, an exception will be thrown during the delete operation.

To Reproduce

1. write A/sub-[i]/file-[i]，write 200 files, 200 directories
2. rename A/ to C/
3. list Parent directory of the C/ directory
4. found A/ directory, delete A/ directory

Expected behavior

• Whether to submit the request for canceling the Persist task when rename is executed
• Persist whether to delete the created directory if the persist task fails

Urgency urgency

Are you planning to fix it

• The current change is synchronous write alluxio.user.file.writetype.default= CACHE_THROUGH

[YichuanSun]

Are you planning to fix it? It is an existing bug, we recommend to use CACHE_THROUGH as you did.