hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LimitedPrivate and HBase
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:13:34 GMT
> I can tell you feel I'm picking on HBase, especially in light of my
> flat out rejection of the "we want to mmap() blocks" case.

I for one understand the objection there.

Although it does negatively impact the work of a recent promising new contributor. As a project,
HBase suffers for it. Of course that is no concern of HDFS. 

On the other hand I do believe Todd has a point. MapReduce is perhaps the only constituency
that HDFS really cares about. Any reasonable person would come to that conclusion after surveying
submitted JIRAs and their resolution times (or not). Historically with HDFS the local itch,
the concern of the big MapReduce shops, gets the scratch and others are of not much concern.
Therefore there is unfortunate business that lingers today -- Facebook, StumbleUpon, Trend
Micro, and others have effectively forked HDFS (0.20) in house for use with HBase, and nobody
I know is seriously considering using HDFS 0.22 or TRUNK due to a lack of evidence that anyone
with a stake in it is running it in production at scale. Past discussion to mend the breach
with an HBase-friendly release of HDFS 0.20 ended with what I would describe as an inflexible
and legalistic air. 

Best regards,

    - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)

--- On Mon, 6/6/11, Allen Wittenauer <aw@apache.org> wrote:

> From: Allen Wittenauer <aw@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: LimitedPrivate and HBase
> To: general@hadoop.apache.org
> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:18 PM
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >>       Let's face it: this
> happened because it was HBase.  If it was almost
> >> anyone else, it would have sat there.... and
> *that's* the point where I'm
> >> mainly concerned.
> > 
> > 
> > If you want to feel better, take a look at HDFS-941,
> HDFS-347, and HDFS-918
> > - these are patches that HBase has been asking for for
> nearly 2 years in
> > some cases and haven't gone in. Satisfied?
>     These cases don't appear to be about
> re-classification of an API from private to
> semi-public.  So no, I'm not.  None of these
> appear to answer the base set of question:
>     - What is the real criteria for changing
> an API from private to limited?
>     - How "closely related" does a project
> need to be to get this privilege?
>     (Yes, I've read the classification
> docs.  That's too vague.)
>     I can tell you feel I'm picking on
> HBase, especially in light of my flat out rejection of the
> "we want to mmap() blocks" case.  But if this
> reclassification had been with anything else outside of the
> Hadoop project, I would have asked the same thing.  It
> raises important questions that we as a project need to
> answer.

View raw message