hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HDFS-1599 status? (HDFS tickets to improve HBase)
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:46:43 GMT
Yes, and though I have patches, and I'm happy to provide them if you want...

Indeed, 347 doesn't do security or checksums so needs work to say the least. We use it with
HBase given a privileged role such that it shares group-readable DFS data directories with
the DataNodes. It works for us, though checksumming is on the to do list.

And I agree 947 is scary. However I did pull the last incarnation of 947 attached to the jira
into CDH3U0 for some ongoing testing with real load, combined with 918, which we did put into

   - Andy

--- On Fri, 6/3/11, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> Subject: Re: HDFS-1599 status? (HDFS tickets to improve HBase)
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Date: Friday, June 3, 2011, 1:09 PM
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Doug
> Meil
> <doug.meil@explorysmedical.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks everybody for commenting on this thread.
> >
> > We'd certainly like to lobby for movement on these two
> tickets, and although we don't have anybody that is familiar
> with the source code we'd be happy to perform some tests get
> some performance numbers.
> >
> > Per Kihwal's comments, it sounds like HDFS-941 needs
> to get re-worked because the patch is stale.
> >
> Yes - bc Wong, the originally contributor, works with me but on
> unrelated projects. HDFS-941 was something he did as part of a
> "hackathon" but only gets occasional time to circle back on it. As we
> last left it, there were just a few things that had to be addressed.
> If someone wants to finish it up, and volunteer to test it under some
> real load, I'd be happy to review and commit.
> > The patch for HDFS-347 sounds like it's still usable.
> The current patch for 347 is unworkable since it doesn't do
> checksums or security. The FD-passing approach was working at some
> point but basically needs to be re-done on trunk.
> I think doing HDFS-941 and HDFS-918 first is best, then more drastic
> things like 347 can be considered.

View raw message