hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Konstantin Boudnik (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HDFS-3107) HDFS truncate
Date Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:22:34 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3107?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14155561#comment-14155561
] 

Konstantin Boudnik commented on HDFS-3107:
------------------------------------------

I think the approach that one new feature is treated should be equally used for another. I
am looking at HDFS-6994 and see subtasks getting committed despite the fact that they were
rejected in the parent. Am I missing some subtle differences between two features?

> HDFS truncate
> -------------
>
>                 Key: HDFS-3107
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3107
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: datanode, namenode
>            Reporter: Lei Chang
>            Assignee: Plamen Jeliazkov
>         Attachments: HDFS-3107.patch, HDFS-3107.patch, HDFS-3107.patch, HDFS-3107.patch,
HDFS-3107.patch, HDFS_truncate.pdf, HDFS_truncate.pdf, HDFS_truncate_semantics_Mar15.pdf,
HDFS_truncate_semantics_Mar21.pdf, editsStored
>
>   Original Estimate: 1,344h
>  Remaining Estimate: 1,344h
>
> Systems with transaction support often need to undo changes made to the underlying storage
when a transaction is aborted. Currently HDFS does not support truncate (a standard Posix
operation) which is a reverse operation of append, which makes upper layer applications use
ugly workarounds (such as keeping track of the discarded byte range per file in a separate
metadata store, and periodically running a vacuum process to rewrite compacted files) to overcome
this limitation of HDFS.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message