hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove append?
Date Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:54:25 GMT
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 03:22PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:25AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Konstantin Shvachko
> >> <shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Eli,
> >> >
> >> > I went over the entire discussion on the topic, and did not get it. Is
> >> > there a problem with append? We know it does not work in hadoop-1,
> >> > only flush() does. Is there anything wrong with the new append
> >> > (HDFS-265)? If so please file a bug.
> >> > I tested it in Hadoop-0.22 branch it works fine.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with people who were involved with the implementation of the
> >> > new append that the complexity is mainly in
> >> > 1. pipeline recovery
> >> > 2. consistent client reading while writing, and
> >> > 3. hflush()
> >> > Once it is done the append itself, which is reopening of previously
> >> > closed files for adding data, is not complex.
> >> >
> >> > You mentioned it and I agree you indeed should be more involved with
> >> > your customer base. As for eBay, append was of the motivations to work
> >> > on stabilizing 0.22 branch. And there is a lot of use cases which
> >> > require append for our customers.
> >> > Some of them were mentioned in this discussion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> From what I've seen 0.22 isn't ready for production use. Aside from
> >> not supporting critical features like security, it doesn't have a
> >> size-able user-base behind it testing and fixing bugs, etc. All things
> >> I'd imagine an org like eBay would want. ═I've never gotten a request
> >> to support 0.22 from a customer.
> >
> > This statement looks like FUD to me, because eBay (and a coupla other shops,
> > as has been stated elsewhere) are using 0.22 in the production and are
> > seemingly happy with that.
> >
> 
> That's my experience, take it for what it's worth.
> 
> Not having important features like security, having very few commits,
> etc is not FUD, you can check that via svn.

Agree. svn statistics are not. However, stating that 
">> From what I've seen 0.22 isn't ready for production use"
despite the evidence of contrary is.

Cos

> 
> Thanks,
> Eli

Mime
View raw message