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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> Hadoop 0.19.1


+
Nigel Daley 2009-01-30, 00:16
+
Steve Loughran 2009-01-30, 10:36
+
stack 2009-01-30, 17:36
+
Raghu Angadi 2009-01-31, 00:54
+
Raghu Angadi 2009-01-31, 01:16
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2009-02-02, 19:59
+
Doug Judd 2009-02-02, 20:51
+
Owen OMalley 2009-02-02, 21:51
+
Jim Kellerman 2009-02-02, 21:59
+
Doug Judd 2009-02-02, 22:02
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2009-02-03, 00:23
+
Doug Judd 2009-02-03, 02:18
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-04, 03:01
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Hadoop 0.19.1

On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:

>
>  >  What do you recommend?
>
> In general. There may be people/organizations, which will not  
> compromise
> on the reduced functionality in favor of the stability, this is  
> understandable.
> I would propose to create a separate (unofficial experimental)  
> branch, which
> would track changes like HADOOP-4379. The branch may later either  
> die when the
> main stream is fixed or be merged with the trunk if the changes  
> proved to be stable.
>
This is very a interesting suggestion.
Many in the team  have come to the conclusion that complex projects  
like append should be done on a separate branch in the first place and  
integrated with trunk when the project is stable.

sanjay
>
>
>  >1. the file length (as returned by getFileStatus) is incorrect
>
> May be the following work around will be useful.
> If you read from a file you always try to read more data than the  
> length reported
> by the name-node. How much more? The size of one block would be  
> enough, or
> even to the next (ceiling) block boundary.
>
>  >2. When an application comes up after a crash, it seems to hang  
> for about 60
>
> Don't have enough context on that, sorry.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> Doug Judd wrote:
> > Sounds good.  I would much rather wait and have fsync() done  
> correctly in
> > 0.20 than get some sort of hacked version in 0.19.  I'll create a  
> couple of
> > issues and mark them for 0.20  Thanks.
> >
> > - Doug
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Doug Judd wrote:
> >>
> >>  What do you recommend?  Is there anyway we could get these two  
> issues
> >>> fixed
> >>> for 0.19.1, or should I file issues for them and get them on the  
> schedule
> >>> for 0.19.2?
> >>>
> >> Given the outstanding problems and general level of uncertainty,  
> I'd favor
> >> releasing a 0.19.1 with the equivalent of the 0.18.3 disable on  
> fsync and
> >> append. Let's get them fixed in 0.20 first and then we can debate  
> whether
> >> the rewards of pushing them back into an 0.19.2 would make sense.  
> I'm pretty
> >> uncomfortable at the moment with how the entire functional  
> complex seems to
> >> cause a continuous stream of problems.
> >>
> >> -- Owen
> >>
> >
>

+
Steve Loughran 2009-02-04, 11:38
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-06, 00:25
+
Doug Cutting 2009-02-06, 18:35
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-06, 18:56
+
Doug Cutting 2009-02-06, 19:33
+
Doug Cutting 2009-02-06, 20:08
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2009-02-06, 20:55
+
Doug Cutting 2009-02-06, 21:19
+
Raghu Angadi 2009-02-07, 00:34
+
Steve Loughran 2009-02-09, 16:39
+
Steve Loughran 2009-02-09, 16:37
+
Koji Noguchi 2009-02-06, 19:38
+
stack 2009-02-04, 18:47
+
Nigel Daley 2009-02-11, 20:47
+
Dhruba Borthakur 2009-02-12, 01:14
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-03, 22:59
+
Jim Kellerman 2009-01-30, 17:46
+
stack 2009-02-04, 18:55
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-14, 23:52
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-14, 23:53
+
Steve Loughran 2009-02-16, 16:23
+
Ted Dunning 2009-02-16, 23:53
+
Doug Cutting 2009-02-18, 23:58
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-14, 23:54
+
Sanjay Radia 2009-02-14, 23:54