hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Spin out MR, HDFS and YARN as their own TLPs and disband Hadoop umbrella project
Date Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:15:10 GMT
Hi Andrew,

How many new Apache Foundation *members* has the Hadoop PMC added over the past 
3-4 years, and by whom (the answer to this question might surprise you)?

The thing you and others continue not to see is that the ASF isn't about the
most superior technical solutions, or the best refactorings to prevent Google Guava
dependencies, the ASF is about *community* _over_ *code*. 

Period. The metrics that the Foundation and its members are interested in are 
the metrics that demonstrate the health of the project. Technical prowess and 
market-share are great, as are diverse, hungry, downstream user communities.
But the ASF is here to create communities, communities that work together to 
develop code for public good at no charge to the public. Scope out Board
resolutions to create projects and read the repetitive text in them -- there's a
pattern there that elucidates this.

Also, the project members and community members here could slice and
dice the project into 50 different Top Level Projects, but it doesn't mean that
Hadoop would be at its "ending".


On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:

> Looking at the voting, it appears YARN wants to become a TLP RIGHT NOW but
> at the price of the complete decoherence of the Apache Hadoop platform. For
> all of us who have invested in the Apache Hadoop platform, how does this
> benefit us? Certainly our interests seem to get little consideration with
> this plan to just blow everything up tomorrow.
> How does a downstream project that imports HDFS and MapReduce coordinate
> the shared dependencies with those new projects? For, example Guava. One
> could have a multi way library incompatibility problem; this has already
> happened in the large with HDFS, HBase, and Pig. It's DLL hell magnified 3
> or 4 times just in the smoking ruins of "core". The obvious answer is: Once
> these pieces are moving in different trajectories at different rates, end
> users and downstream projects will be forced to negotiate with many
> parties, and those parties explicitly wont care about the issues concerning
> another, according to this discussion. YARN must have broken our
> minicluster based MapReduce tests 5 times over the last year. HDFS took up
> a certain version of Guava and this required us to refactor some code to
> match that version. We had a coherent group of committers to assist us then
> but that would go away. Proponents of the split seem to want exactly this
> situation. BigTop was suggested as a vehicle for addressing that concern
> but then explicitly rejected on this thread. A commercial vendor looking to
> torpedo the ability of anyone to build something on Apache Hadoop directly
> couldn't come up with a better plan, because only a full time operation can
> be expected to have the resources to harmonize the pieces plus all of their
> dependencies with build patches, code wrangling, testing, testing, testing.
> Volunteer contributor and committer time is a precious gift. I wonder if
> the many professional full time Hadoop devs voting here have lost sight of
> this. Pushing your integration work downstream doesn't mean resources will
> be there to pick it up. Downstream projects could be forced to reluctantly
> abandon working with Apache releases for a commercial distribution such as
> CDH, or the MapR platform. Or, they will be unable to move from a "known
> good" combination in the face of a combinatorial explosion of dependency
> changes, so their general utility to the end user steadily declines. Maybe
> the consensus is that is acceptable, but I would find that kind of a sad
> ending to this remarkable project.
> On Friday, August 31, 2012, Devaraj Das wrote:
>> Andrew's points are fair IMHO. In general, I think it makes sense to have
>> the TLPs but we aren't there yet (as others have pointed out). I'd propose
>> that we should think about the timelines (maybe an appropriate time is when
>> we have Hadoop-2.0 GA'ed).
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>> As a direct Apache software product consumer and sometimes contributor, I
>>> also experienced firsthand the pain of the project splits. It was not
>>> possible to build an installable release. It may have been many days or
>>> weeks before that was cured by a re-merge. I gave up after burning too
>> many
>>> hours on it, went back to the 1.0 code base, and came back only after the
>>> damage was repaired.
>>> It's also frustrating to hear, even if just one person's proposal, that
>> we
>>> have spent months preparing to stabilize our next production deployment
>>> based on the 2.0 branch, with the expectation that it will be the new
>>> stable, but now maybe 0.23 will be the new stable. 0.23 is quite
>> backwards
>>> in comparison and missing all of the critical HA HDFS work.
>>> This thread seems to be becoming a competition for which is the more
>>> radical proposal to snatch defeat from the jaws of success.
>>> These proposals seem to be made with a total lack of care for the end
>> user.
>>> From my point of view, things were going reasonably well until suddenly
>>> there is this sudden turn into lunacy. I am positive this kind of
>>> "foundation" / PMC / project / administrivia tinkering is what will
>>> fragment or disband the Hadoop community of users and contributors, not
>>> disagreements between committers. A Hadoop competitor couldn't be happer.
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
>>> <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>>>> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>>> OK I lied and said I wouldn't reply :)
>>>> Long thread. I just picked a random Chris's (as the initiator) email to
>>>> reply.
>>>> Chris,
>>>> You are basically saying there's been a history of community problems
>>>> in Hadoop project,
>>>> and proposing a technical solution to split the project by replicating
>>>> the source base under three new names,
>>>> implying that this will solve the community problems we (the Hadoop
>>>> community) are facing.
>>>> I see several issues.
>>>> 1. There are other ways to split the project.
>>>> We essentially have a "natural" split of the project already in place.
>>>> Hadoop 1, Hadoop 2, Hadoop 0.23, the Trunk
>>>> are in a sense competing projects by themselves, with own contributors
>>>> and release cycles.
>>>> 2. From technical (not community) viewpoint your "svn copy" is an ugly
>>>> approach,
>>>> as it creates a lot of code duplication and will result in a
>>>> maintenance nightmare or / and
>>>> will require many man-months to fix. My point is that you cannot
>>>> neglect "technical issues" when you solve community problems.
>>>> 3. I am as skeptical as Todd that the community problems will be
>>>> solved by simply TLP-ing the three projects.
>>>> Two years ago Hadoop was in crises as vendors were producing their own
>>>> releases calling it Hadoop.
>>>> I think this was solved, but "poor community behavior" and contentions
>>>> remained, embrace them or not.
>>>> 4. Having said the above, separating the projects seems reasonable.
>>>> (See timing though)
>>>> HDFS will inevitable have to inherit and maintain most of Common.
>>>> Totally understand frustration of people who just put a huge effort
>>>> into merging
>>>> the sources back under common root.
>>>> 5. Timing is important.
>>>> Waiting until Hadoop 2 is stable as Arun suggested earlier would
>>>> probably be too long.
>>>> Doing it next week, without discussing and solving technical issue
>>>> listed in the thread would be premature.
>>>> I think Hadoop 0.23.3 release backed by Yahoo production has a
>>>> potential to become
>>>> the next stable version, letting the project to move ahead off the
>>>> four year old code base.
>>>> We should help that happen first, and do necessary preparations for
>>>> the split in the mean time.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --Konstantin
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
> -- 
> Best regards,
>   - Andy
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)

Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

View raw message