Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HDFS >> mail # dev >> [Proposal] Pluggable Namespace

Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-03, 19:17
Bobby Evans 2013-10-04, 15:31
Andrew Purtell 2013-10-05, 18:23
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-05, 19:37
Azuryy Yu 2013-10-06, 01:40
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-06, 16:35
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2013-10-06, 19:20
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-06, 19:54
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-07, 00:58
Mahadev Konar 2013-10-07, 03:04
Bobby Evans 2013-10-07, 15:52
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-07, 17:18
Chris Nauroth 2013-10-07, 16:44
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-07, 17:11
Doug Cutting 2013-10-07, 18:15
Andrew Purtell 2013-10-07, 19:05
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2013-10-07, 19:42
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-07, 19:49
Doug Cutting 2013-10-07, 19:50
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-07, 23:50
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-10-08, 02:40
Copy link to this message
Re: [Proposal] Pluggable Namespace

On Oct 6, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Milind Bhandarkar wrote:

> Vinod,
> I have received a few emails about concerns that this effort somehow
> conflicts with federated namenodes. Most of these emails are from folks
> who are directly or remotely associated with Hortonworks.
> Three weeks ago, I sent emails about this effort to a few  Hadoop
> committers who are primarily focused on HDFS, whose email address I had.
> While 2 out of those three responded to me, the third person associated
> with Hortonworks, did not.

That 3rd person was me. My lack of response was NOT due to  conflicts with federation (see my comment below) but simply me not being on top of my email (which I am infamous for), and being busy with Apache Hadoop 2.x GA stuff.
> Is Hortonworks concerned that this proposal conflicts with their
> development on federated namenode ?

I see 2 comments in this thread on federation - one from Vinod (at Hortonworks) and the other from Azuryy Yu who I don't know.
Vinod did comment that the block layer has already been separated from FSNamesystem during the  federation work.
You responded correctly to both Vinod and Azuryy and in those responses kept the email to a technical level.
However,  suddenly, in this mail you went into overdrive about some conspiracy on my part  or on the part of the colleagues I work with in the community - there isn't any.
Milind, you have worked with me and others over several years - when you don't hear back or hear responses you don't like please give us the benefit of doubt that we are operating with the best of intent.
BTW, as you well know, I am not the custodian of HDFS, the community is.

I will comment shortly on the technical side of your proposal, separately. BTW I don't see any conflicts with Federation or any parts of HDFS, and even if there was,
the community will decide the direction of HDFS.
A Jira would be a good idea.


> I have explicitly stated that it does
> not, and is orthogonal to federation. But I would like to know if there
> are some false assumptions being made about the intent of this
> development, and would like to quash any conspiracy theories right now,
> before they assume a life of their own.
> Thanks,
> Milind …...
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.
sanjay Radia 2013-10-08, 04:50
Milind Bhandarkar 2013-10-08, 17:13