hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suresh Srinivas <sur...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: symlink support in Hadoop 2 GA
Date Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:23:01 GMT
I agree that this is an important change. However, 2.2.0 GA is getting
ready to rollout in weeks. I am concerned that these changes will add not
only incompatible changes late in the game, but also possibly instability.
Java API incompatibility is some thing we have avoided for the most part
and I am concerned that this is adding such incompatibility in FileSystem
APIs. We should find work arounds by adding possibly newer APIs and leaving
existing APIs as is. If this can be done, my vote is to enable this feature
in 2.3. Even if it cannot be done, I am concerned that this is coming quite
late and we should see if could allow some incompatible changes into 2.3
for this feature.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
> I wanted to broadcast plans for putting the FileSystem symlinks work
> (HADOOP-8040) into branch-2.1 for the pending Hadoop 2 GA release. I think
> it's pretty important we get it in since it's not a compatible change; if
> it misses the GA train, we're not going to have symlinks until the next
> major release.
> However, we're still dealing with ongoing issues revealed via testing.
> There's user-code out there that only handles files and directories and
> will barf when given a symlink (perhaps a dangling one!). See HADOOP-9912
> for a nice example where globStatus returning symlinks broke Pig; some of
> us had a conference call to talk it through, and one definite conclusion
> was that this wasn't solvable in a generally compatible manner.
> There are also still some gaps in symlink support right now. For example,
> the more esoteric FileSystems like WebHDFS, HttpFS, and HFTP need symlink
> resolution, and tooling like the FsShell and Distcp still need to be
> updated as well.
> So, there's definitely work to be done, but there are a lot of users
> interested in the feature, and symlinks really should be in GA. Would
> appreciate any thoughts/input on the matter.
> Thanks,
> Andrew


NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
and delete it from your system. Thank You.

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