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

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS >> mail # dev >> [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Vote is closed (unless there is objection).  I'll commit below in next
day or so.
Thanks to all who participated.
St.Ack

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given people have had several days to vote, and there have been no
> -1s, this should be good to go in, right? We have two HDFS committer
> +1s (Stack and Nicholas) and nonbinding +1s from several others.
>
> Thanks
> -Todd
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This is a friendly reminder for voting on committing HDFD-927 to 0.20 and 0.21.
>>
>> Comiitters, please vote!
>>
>> Nicholas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> > From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 10:22:50 PM
>> > Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
>> >
>> > I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
>> > 0.20 and to 0.21.
>> >
>> > HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
>> > location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
>> > "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
>> > unusable".  HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die.  We
>> > voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00401.html,
>> > only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
>> >
>> > High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
>> > read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
>> > there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt).  When
>> > rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
>> > raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
>> >
>> > HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
>> >
>> > I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
>> >
>> > Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
>> > St.Ack
>>
>>
>