hadoop-hdfs-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HDFS-7411) Refactor and improve decommissioning logic into DecommissionManager
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2015 03:25:14 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7411?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14315506#comment-14315506

Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze commented on HDFS-7411:

> Isn't it better that we can quickly mark all these nodes as decommissioned, rather than
waiting minutes or hours? ...

Then, why don't you setting it to some larger values, say 1m or 10m?

> ... Really these statements can be made about any patch.

That's correct.  My comments are not subjective to you or your patches.  For any patch, if
it wants to remove an existing public feature, it should first deprecate and then remove the
feature in some later release.  It is not well-thought-out for anyone to say that one could
fix any bug in the future so that we have nothing to worry.

> ... could you please address my proposals about how to translate the old config into
the new config? If you're okay removing the old code in a later 2.x release, ...

I cannot think of  a good way to do the translation.  Later on, when we have more experience
the new approach, we may be able to make a better decision.

> ... The example you gave exhibits surprising behavior, but it's a pleasant surprise.
It's like finding presents under the tree on Christmas day.

It seems that most cluster admins do not like surprise.  A surprising event means they cannot
understand the system well enough to predict the behavior.

I do agree that children like the surprise if they found presents under the Christmas tree.

> As this has already been reviewed by two people, I still feel like a patch split to ease
review is a strange request. -1 on an already +1'd patch because it doesn't split a refactor
would be quite novel.

The -1 is not for the refactoring.  It is for keeping the existing behavior.  I actually don't
understand why the patch can get +1'ed without bringing up the incompatibility issue.

> Refactor and improve decommissioning logic into DecommissionManager
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HDFS-7411
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7411
>             Project: Hadoop HDFS
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 2.5.1
>            Reporter: Andrew Wang
>            Assignee: Andrew Wang
>         Attachments: hdfs-7411.001.patch, hdfs-7411.002.patch, hdfs-7411.003.patch, hdfs-7411.004.patch,
hdfs-7411.005.patch, hdfs-7411.006.patch, hdfs-7411.007.patch, hdfs-7411.008.patch, hdfs-7411.009.patch,
> Would be nice to split out decommission logic from DatanodeManager to DecommissionManager.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message