hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Shvachko <...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Commit hdfs-1024 to 0.20 branch
Date Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:17:22 GMT
+1

I also thought that version mismatch is FB specific.
Other people will not be able to run different versions of NN and SNN.
--Konstantin

On 4/2/2010 10:41 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Stack<stack@duboce.net>  wrote:
>
>> >  Please on committing HDFS-1024 to the hadoop 0.20 branch.
>> >
>> >  Background:
>> >
>> >  HDFS-1024 fixes possible trashing of fsimage because of failed copy
>> >  from 2NN and NN.  Ordinarily, possible corruption of this proportion
>> >  would merit commit w/o need of a vote only Dhruba correctly notes that
>> >  UNLESS both NN and 2NN are upgraded, HDFS-1024 becomes an incompatible
>> >  change (the NN<->2NN communication will fail always).  IMO, this
>> >  incompatible change can be plastered over with a release note; e.g.
>> >  WARNING, you MUST update NN and 2NN when you go to 0.20.3 hadoop.  If
>> >  you agree with me, please vote +1 on commit.
>> >
> +1. If I recall correctly the NN and 2NN already do a very strict version
> check in branch 20, so it's not any more incompatible than any other change.
> (I think Dhruba made the version check less strict in the FB branch)
>
> -Todd
>
>


Mime
View raw message