hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dhruba Borthakur <dhr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hadoop 0.20.0
Date Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:52:03 GMT
"Whipping out a patch" says nothing about its reliability.

i would like some focus from the developer's community to properly fix this
issue. I am willing to spend as much as time it takes ot get it fixed the
right way, I but I would like even more constructive engagement from more
people to get this one right. May I request you to see if you can volunteer
to spend some time testing some of this code at scale ?(I have access to 10
machines only for testing).

thanks
dhruba

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
>
>  Hi Jim,
>>
>> I can understand your problem.  I can probably whip out a fix for
>> HADOOP-4663 and HADOOP-4379 by the end of this week. It would be nice if
>> somebody else (Hairong,  Sanjay, Konstantin?) can volunteer to discuss and
>> review the patches/fixes.
>>
>
> "Whipping out a patch" doesn't give me any confidence that this feature
> will be fixed properly.  We're building a file system.  Data reliability and
> accuracy are absolutely key.  We know that this feature has been very
> lightly tested.
>
>  Nigel: wht is the proposed deadline for 0.20?
>>
>
> March 6.
>
> Nige
>
>
>  thanks,
>> dhruba
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Jim Kellerman (POWERSET) <
>> Jim.Kellerman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>  --1
>>>
>>> HBase really needs 4379. My testing to date indicates that it does work
>>> (although I have a bit more testing to do).
>>>
>>> I was ok with not putting it into 0.19.1 provided it was in 0.19.2 and
>>> 0.20.0.
>>>
>>> It's a big problem for us now and is hurting our ability to keep our
>>> community alive. (They will go to Cassandra or something else to ensure
>>> reliability).
>>>
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nigel Daley [mailto:ndaley@yahoo-inc.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:02 PM
>>>> To: core-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Hadoop 0.20.0
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Hadoop 0.19.1 is now available with the file append feature disabled.
>>>> It's time to talk about a Hadoop 0.20.0 release.
>>>>
>>>> Hadoop 0.20.0 feature freeze date was almost 3 months ago.  The last
>>>> few blockers are now almost fixed (should be next week) except for
>>>> HADOOP-4379.  HADOOP-4379 is work that is needed to properly implement
>>>> file append.
>>>>
>>>> *** I propose we move HADOOP-4379 off to release 0.21.0 and apply the
>>>> same disabling of file append in Hadoop 0.20.0 that we put in place to
>>>> get 0.19.1 released (HADOOP-5224 and HADOOP-5225).
>>>>
>>>> I will call a vote for 0.20.0 when blockers are fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Nigel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some Hadoop deployments have upgraded to 0.19.0.  Clearly, the 0.19
>>>>> branch has issues and a 0.19.1 release is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quality issues in the changes made for the file append feature have
>>>>> prevented some from deploying Hadoop 0.19.  One of these changes
>>>>> (sync) has now been "fixed" by reducing its semantics in Hadoop
>>>>> 0.18.3 (HADOOP-4997).  This was necessary to stabilize the 0.18
>>>>> branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to propose that we apply this same "fix" to sync in
>>>>> 0.19.1 and 0.20.0.  Since append requires the full semantics of
>>>>> sync, I propose we also disable append (perhaps throw
>>>>> UnsupportedOperationException from API?).  Yes, this would
>>>>> unfortunately be an incompatible change between 0.19.0 and 0.19.1.
>>>>> We can then take the time needed to fix append properly in 0.21.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will call a vote for 0.19.1 and 0.20.0 when blockers are fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nigel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message