hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lars George <lars.geo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Commit hdfs-630 to 0.21?
Date Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:44:40 GMT
+1

Lars

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>wrote:

> +1 for 0.21.0
>
> J-D
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM, stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> >> HDFS-630 is kinda critical to us over in hbase.  We'd like to get it
> into
> >> 0.21 (Its been committed to TRUNK).  Its probably hard to argue its a
> >> blocker for 0.21.  We could run a vote.  Or should we just file it
> against
> >> 0.21.1 hdfs and commit it after 0.21 goes out?  What would folks
> suggest?
> >>
> >> Without it, a node crash (datanode+regionserver) will bring down a
> second
> >> regionserver, particularly if the cluster is small (See HBASE-1876 for
> >> description of the play-by-play where NN keeps giving out dead DN as
> place
> >> to locate new blocks).  Since the bulk of hbase clusters are small --
> >> whether evaluations, test, or just small productions -- this issue is an
> >> important fix for us.  If the cluster is of 5 or less nodes, we'll
> probably
> >> recover but there'll be a period of churn.  At a minimum mapreduce jobs
> >> running against the cluster will fail (usually some kind of bullk
> upload).
> >>
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

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