hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Collins <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Abandon hdfsproxy HDFS contrib
Date Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:31:36 GMT
Sounds like hdfs proxy isn't being maintained. The hdfs proxy tests
were disabled as part of HDFS-1666 because no one would maintain it.
If it's not going to be maintained we should remove it, currently
HDFS-1666 is a blocker for 0.22 because we don't want to release
bitrot'd code to users as part of 22.

Let's remove the current hdfsproxy in contrib and then either add the
features to HDFS directly (Sanjay suggested above might be an option)
or we can add a new non-contrib one (Alejandro built a nice working
one that just needs docs and some more tests that he could
contribute).

Owen - is that an acceptable solution to you?  HDSF-1666 is the last
blocker for 0.22 and we'd like to make progress on the release.

Thanks,
Eli

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@mac.com> wrote:
> AFAICT, Owen was the one to -1 removal of HDFS Proxy.  Owen, are you guys maintaining
this?
>
> Cheers,
> Nige
>
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
>> Could those of you who -1ed the removal of HDFS Proxy please look into the
>> test that has been failing our Hudson build for the last several months:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-1666
>>
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-1666>It is one thing to say that
>> we "should" maintain a piece of code, but it's another to actually maintain
>> it. In my mind, part of maintaining a project involves addressing consistent
>> test failures as high priority items.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For closure, this vote fails due to a couple binding -1 votes.
>>>
>>> Nige
>>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:46 AM, Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bernd,
>>>>
>>>> Apache Hadoop is about scale. Most clusters will always be small, but
>>> Hadoop is going mainstream precisely because it scales to huge data and
>>> cluster sizes.
>>>>
>>>> There are lots of systems that work well on 10 node clusters. People
>>> select   Hadoop because they are confident that as their business / problem
>>> grows, Hadoop can grow with it.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> E14 - via iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:25 AM, "Bernd Fondermann" <
>>> bernd.fondermann@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 14:58, Ian Holsman <hadoop@holsman.net>
wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Bernd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have the very unfortunate situation here at Hadoop where Apache
>>>>>>> Hadoop is not the primary and foremost place of Hadoop development.
>>>>>>> Instead, code is developed internally at Yahoo and then contributed
in
>>>>>>> (smaller or larger) chunks to Hadoop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been the situation in the past,
>>>>>> but as you can see in the last month, this has changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yahoo! has publicly committed to move their development into the
main
>>> code base, and you can see they have started doing this with the 20.100
>>> branch,
>>>>>> and their recent commits to trunk.
>>>>>> Combine this with Nige taking on the 0.22 release branch, (and
>>> sheperding it into a stable release) and I think we have are addressing your
>>> concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have also started bringing the discussions back on the list,
see
>>> the recent discussion about Jobtracker-nextgen Arun has re-started in
>>> MAPREDUCE-279.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think the major players understand
>>> there is an issue, and they are *ALL* moving in the right direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> I enthusiastically would like to see your optimism be verified.
>>>>> Maybe I'm misreading the statements issued publicly, but I don't think
>>>>> that this is fully understood. I agree though that it's a move into
>>>>> the right direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is open source development upside down.
>>>>>>> It is not ok for people to diff ASF svn against their internal
code
>>>>>>> and provide the diff as a patch without reviewing IP first for
every
>>>>>>> line of code changed.
>>>>>>> For larger chunks I'd suggest to even go via the Incubator IP
>>> clearance process.
>>>>>>> Only then will we force committers to primarily work here in
the open
>>>>>>> and return to what I'd consider a healthy project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be honest: Hadoop is in the process of falling apart.
>>>>>>> Contrib Code gets moved out of Apache instead of being maintained
>>> here.
>>>>>>> Discussions are seldom consense-driven.
>>>>>>> Release branches stagnate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True. releases do take a long time. This is mainly due to it being
>>> extremely hard to test and verify that a release is stable.
>>>>>> It's not enough to just run the thing on 4 machines, you need at
least
>>> 50 to test some of the major problems. This requires some serious $ for
>>> someone to verify.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been proposed on the list before, IIRC. Don't know how to get
>>>>> there, but the project seriously needs access to a cluster of this
>>>>> size.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Downstream projects like HBase don't get proper support.
>>>>>>> Production setups are made from 3rd party distributions.
>>>>>>> Development is not happening here, but elsewhere behind corporate
>>> doors.
>>>>>>> Discussion about future developments are started on corporate
blogs (
>>>>>>>
>>> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/hadoop/posts/2011/02/mapreduce-nextgen/
>>>>>>> ) instead of on the proper mailing list.
>>>>>>> Hurdles for committing are way too high.
>>>>>>> On the bright side, new committers and PMC members are added,
this is
>>>>>>> an improvement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd suggest to move away from relying on large code dumps from
>>>>>>> corporations, and move back to the ASF-proven "individual committer
>>>>>>> commits on trunk"-model where more committers can get involved.
>>>>>>> If that means not to support high end cluster sizes for some
months,
>>>>>>> well, so be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Average committers cannot run - e.g. test - on high
>>>>>>> end cluster sizes. If that would mean they cannot participate,
then
>>>>>>> the open source project better concentrate on small and medium
sized
>>>>>>> cluster instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well.. that's one approach.. but there are several companies out
there
>>> who rely on apache's hadoop to power their large clusters, so I'd hate to
>>> see hadoop become something that only runs well on
>>>>>> 10-nodes.. as I don't think that will help anyone either.
>>>>>
>>>>> But only looking at high-end scale doesn't help either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets face the fact that Hadoop is now moving from early adaptors phase
>>>>> into a much broader market. I predict that small to medium sized
>>>>> clusters will be the majority of Hadoop deployments in a few month
>>>>> time. 4000, or even 500 machines is the high-end range. If the open
>>>>> source project Hadoop cannot support those users adequately (without
>>>>> becoming defunct), the committership might be better off to focus on
>>>>> the low-end and medium sized users.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not suggesting to turn away from the handfull (?) of high-end
>>>>> users. They certainly have most valuable input. But also, *they*
>>>>> obviously have the resources in terms of larger clusters and
>>>>> developers to deal with their specific setups. Obviously, they don't
>>>>> need to rely on the open source project to make releases. In fact,
>>>>> they *do* work on their own Hadoop derivatives.
>>>>> All the other users, the hundreds of boring small cluster users, don't
>>>>> have that choice. They *depend* on the open source releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadoop is an Apache project, to provide HDFS and MR free of charge to
>>>>> the general public. Not only to me - nor to only one or two big
>>>>> companies either.
>>>>> Focus on all the users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernd
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
>

Mime
View raw message