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

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS, mail # dev - VOTE: HDFS-347 merge


Copy link to this message
-
Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge
sanjay Radia 2013-02-27, 01:36

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Given that HDFS-347 is a strictly better approach, once committed,
>> there will be ample motivation to add support for other OSes and
>> remove HDFS-2246 entirely. Nobody is confused about this. There's
>> ample precedent for retaining obscure, clumsy features as a temporary
>> stop-gap (e.g., service plugins, opaque blobs of bytes in Tasks,
>> configurable combiner semantics). What's the virtue of insisting on
>> removing this? Unless there was a lot of follow-on work, HDFS-2246
>> doesn't look like a lot of code...
>>
>
>

Chris's comment on keeping the removal of HDFS-2246 independent of HDFS-347 makes sense  in this specific case and also in the general case where
 new optimizations are added.

One  objection is code complexity of fallback code:
> Though it's not a ton of code, I think that having to support a more
> complex fallback path (i.e. try the HDFS-347 method, then fall back to
> trying the HDFS-2246 method, then fall back to doing normal TCP reads to
> the local DN) will make the code quite a bit hairier for little added
> benefit.

Aaron, what if you didn't fall back in the fashion you suggest, but instead the code does one
HDFS-2246 OR HDFS-347 when that option is set and HDFS-347 when both are set. Hence the fallback code will be of the same complexity.
Clearly one could add a platform specific optimization down the road; one could think of HDFS-2246 as being a windows optimization.

Another objection is who will maintain the HDFS-2246 code: Suresh has volunteered to maintain the code.
What are the remaining objections leaving both styles of optimizations in the code base?

sanjay