Mailing-List: contact hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of clehene@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.183 as permitted sender)
From: Cosmin Lehene <clehene@adobe.com>
To: "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
        "hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:13:23 +0000
Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
Thread-Topic: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
Thread-Index: Acqfv7+dBNx5yun6TJ2GkKf/HFXx7gAOmR9C
Message-ID: <C78721D3.161E6%clehene@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <104245.66328.qm@web65507.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.3.0.091002
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

HDFS-909 left us with a corrupted HDFS

Cosmin


On 1/28/10 4:14 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> So the list of HDFS issues for next 0.20.x or 0.21 most relevant to HBase
> stability I have is:
>=20
>    127
>    200 (well, hflush)
>    630
>    793
>=20
>=20
> Sound about right? Anything important I'm missing?
>=20
>   -  Andy
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
>> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 9:14:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
>>=20
>> I don't think 101 is a real blocker - I haven't been able to reliably
>> produce it. HDFS-793 fixes most of the issues I've seen in practice, and=
 we
>> now have a new patch in branch-20 which should fix that.
>>=20
>> 127 would be nice - there's a patch on that JIRA waiting for review as
>> below.
>>=20
>> -Todd
>>=20
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Stack wrote:
>>=20
>>> If the new release included (fixedup) hdfs-127 and hdfs-101, the hbase
>>> crew would be big fans of an hadoop 0.20.2.
>>> St.Ack
>>>=20
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>>>> HDFS-127 was originally committed, then rolled back from 0.20 as it
>>> caused
>>>> test timeouts due to infinite loop. I put a new patch up there but it =
has
>>>> not been reviewed, and thus not committed.
>>>>=20
>>>> Owen: is there a particular rush for 0.20.2 or can we hold out for the=
se
>>>> patches?
>>>>=20
>>>> -Todd
>>>>=20
>>>> 2010/1/26 Kay Kay
>>>>=20
>>>>> Is HDFS-127 going to be  part of it ? (seems to have been committed a=
s
>>> per
>>>>> the jira).
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On 1/26/10 6:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:56AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I'm planning on rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 today. Are there any blocke=
rs
>>>>>>> that can't wait?
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> -- Owen
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>      =20
>=20