hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cosmin Lehene <cleh...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Commit hdfs-630 to 0.21?
Date Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:59:57 GMT
+1 

Cosmin


On 12/15/09 10:44 AM, "Lars George" <lars.george@gmail.com> wrote:

> +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
View raw message