From general-return-5505-apmail-hadoop-general-archive=hadoop.apache.org@hadoop.apache.org Sun Sep 2 22:11:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 89211DB39 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 22:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95915 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2012 22:11:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 95824 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2012 22:11:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 95816 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2012 22:11:39 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:11:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.210.48] (HELO mail-pz0-f48.google.com) (209.85.210.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:11:35 +0000 Received: by mail-pz0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z8so3929164dad.35 for ; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=references:from:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=d7SYKdQVJs6cVrRtHfMJxnD8PedZnUuW676Pxy3r4Q0=; b=VwI7S9hZLti49RvEHMCYx0fmWdjMa62DP/hKDXqvM2zqB2mc9UKzsrmgvXZxWDIZxI REwpkTAPsnZFlg3keAJhwH/17xEXM3pGPg+ueQLUhwQM+OEKnNu4FEukHuwxKNQk0SMe 0vSV9I3mMKushpCxNzzHxgRTgR0oS75ztBHUXG4GA0DEUYI/q5KxINrIDdxhZBcTLhRT ID/N+kIASUARZhawvAfY2nX7PYnEq94i4RmQbhVOe3i5NSNdCLrMq9v0h+UwSzpFqK1l mlFQZ22IW1n43aitpuIwMfgelEBYs3P8v2r7n7Pl9vLzFJaRPihyMhVVCUy96oooR3DT lnXQ== Received: by 10.68.132.234 with SMTP id ox10mr8783686pbb.41.1346623874349; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT) References: <751827D1-0353-45E3-B5AA-14E0556CDCEE@hortonworks.com> From: Arun Murthy In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 15:11:14 -0700 Message-ID: <-7917683134968972508@unknownmsgid> Subject: Re: Large feature development To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl10Bf8ObiqI8KUr3VzYUvOx7Kf7LWPh8U9LwgJDGAds6jjRgAVnljg46O93JYAc640F6kh X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Eli, On Sep 2, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Arun C Murthy wrot= e: >> Todd, >> >> On Sep 1, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >> >>> I'd actually contend that YARN was merged too early. I have yet to see >>> anyone running YARN in production, and it's holding up the "Stable" >>> moniker for Hadoop 2.0 -- HDFS-wise we are already quite stable and >>> I'm seeing fewer issues in our customers running Hadoop HDFS 2 >>> compared to Hadoop 1-derived code. >> >> You know I respect you a ton, but I'm very saddened to see you perpetuat= e this FUD on our public lists. I expected better, particularly when everyo= ne is working towards the same goals of advancing Hadoop-2. This sniping on= other members doing work is, um, I'll just stop here rather than regret la= ter. > 2. HDFS is more mature than YARN. Not a surprise given that we all > agree YARN is alpha, and a much newer project than HDFS that hasn't > yet been deployed in production environments yet (to my knowledge). Let's focus on the ground reality here. Please read my (or Rajiv's) message again about YARN's current stability and how much it's baked, it's deployment plans to a very large cluster in a few *days*. Or, talk to the people developing, testing and supporting these customers and clusters. I'll repeat - YARN has clearly baked much more than HDFS HA given the basic bugs (upgrade, edit logs corruption etc.) we've seen after being declared *done*; but then we just disagree since clearly I'm more conservative. Also, we need to be more conservative wrt HDFS - but then what would I know... I'll admit it's hard to discuss with someone (or a collective) who just repeat themselves. Plus, I broke my own rule about email this weekend - so, I'll try harder. Arun