Filed HDFS-4114. I think it's a regular code change like MR-2736.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been 10 days or so: Eli, do you want to file a JIRA to remove this
> Do we need to call a vote of any kind, or is this treated as a code change
> where the normal processes apply?
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Aaron T. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm also in favor of removing them. I've fielded many questions from users
>> about their status, how they compare to other daemons that exist, etc. All
>> I've seen them do is increase confusion among users and be a maintenance
>> burden on developers.
>> Aaron T. Myers
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hey gang,
>> > Is anyone using the BackupNode and/or CheckpointNode? I'm not aware
>> > of anyone using them, and the only outstanding related jira is
>> > HDFS-2064, which has been open for over a year and doesn't seem to be
>> > making progress. For the past three years the code has only been
>> > maintained as part of other changes and test failures, which has
>> > frankly been a bit of a development tax. Back in 2008 in HADOOP-4539
>> > the goal for the BackupNode was to eventually become a StandbyNode, it
>> > doesn't look like anyone is working on that. Users get confused as to
>> > whether to use the 2NN or the CheckpointNode, and what the point of
>> > the BackupNode is since it's not provide HA or evolved. Unless someone
>> > wants to push on their evolution and actively maintain them I don't
>> > think it makes sense to keep them in the tree. Thoughts?
>> > Thanks,
>> > Eli
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera