[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-574?page=comments#action_12453742 ]
Doug Cutting commented on HADOOP-574:
-------------------------------------
> DFSShell is really more general than DFS - perhaps it should be renamed FSShell?
Yes, it probably should, since it is largely generic.
> I need to see how the S3 implementation fits with HADOOP-571. Suggestions welcome.
What should the URI look like? The scheme should be "s3", that's easy, but what about the
authority? I think it makes sense to map bucket to host, access key id to user and secret
access key to password. So that would give URIs like s3://id:secret@bucket/. One's hadoop-site.xml
could then just specify the fs.default.name using this syntax.
Other than that, all you should need to do is define a few new FileSystem methods (getUri(),
initialize(URI, Configuration)) and a new configuration property (fs.s3.impl).
> want FileSystem implementation for Amazon S3
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-574
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-574
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: fs
> Affects Versions: 0.9.0
> Reporter: Doug Cutting
> Attachments: dependencies.zip, HADOOP-574-v2.patch, HADOOP-574.patch
>
>
> An S3-based Hadoop FileSystem would make a great addition to Hadoop.
> It would facillitate use of Hadoop on Amazon's EC2 computing grid, as discussed here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org/msg00318.html
> This is related to HADOOP-571, which would make Hadoop's FileSystem considerably easier
to extend.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
|