-Re: Changes to FSImage/FSEditLog
Ivan Kelly 2010-11-18, 08:42
This patch looks really good. It shouldn't affect our refactoring too much and will actually make things a lot easier for the next part (breaking the circular dependency between namesystem and fsimage).
On 18 Nov 2010, at 02:27, Todd Lipcon wrote:
I put up a sketch of a patch for 1473. It compiles and passes at least a couple of the unit tests, but more work to be done on it. Would appreciate comments from this crowd if the new classes seem like good divisions.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Hairong Kuang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
You meant HDFS-1473 right? When do you expect that it could be done?
I was working on HDFS-1473 this morning and could probably get a preliminary patch up today.. but when I realized that we have 4 parallel refactorings going on I paused my work. If we agree that HDFS-1473 will go in before the other ones I can finish it up, but if we're doing the same thing we should coordinate instead.
On 11/17/10 2:29 PM, "Eli Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Agree we should do the refactoring before the features, we should also
> add the tests with the refactoring to show they don't break things.
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> OK, looks like there is still quite a bit more in motion here, thanks for
>> the list, Hairong.
>> How would everyone feel about setting aside those improvements/fixes, doing
>> the refactor first, and then going back to them? It should help with testing
>> and reduce conflicts between the various ongoing projects.
>> Maybe we can discuss quickly on this thread: what are some small refactors
>> we can start with to help separate these things? Ivan's project looks really
>> good but it seems like it is a pretty large change. If we can break it up
>> into a couple smaller patches we can commit as we go.
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Hairong Kuang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>> Hi Todd,
>>> Here is the list of fsimage jiras that I am working on:
>>> HDFS-1481 // small change
>>> HDFS-1458 // small change
>>> HDFS-1496 // should be checked into 022, I still have no clue how to fix
>>> HDFS-1070 // this one has a simple idea, but turns out that it needs
>>> major code re-organization. I am still struggling with how to make my code
>>> change easier to review. But this will definitely collide with yours.
>>> On 11/17/10 11:57 AM, "Todd Lipcon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>> As many of you know, I've been working on HDFS-1073 for a few months, and
>>> we're hoping to get it in for 0.22 (OOM has given the OK to merge this into
>>> branch and Sanjay has helpfully gotten some commitment from Yahoo QA to help
>>> test it).
>>> It's been difficult recently to work on the patch as a lot of changes have
>>> gone in around FSImage and FSEditLog (eg checksumming, parallel load, etc)
>>> so the patch falls out of date quickly and is hard to resolve the changes
>>> since my patch moves a lot of code. Ivan Kelly over at Yahoo Barcelona has
>>> also been working on a refactor and I think running into a similar issue.
>>> So, I just wanted to ping everyone who has been working on this area of
>>> the code to find out if there are any more remaining JIRAs that you're
>>> hoping to commit in the next several weeks that will touch FSImage and
>>> FSEditLog. If so, we should try to agree on an order in which to commit them
>>> so we don't end up stomping on each other, and we can help review each
>>> other's work to move quicker.
>>> If you can just reply with a list of any remaining uncommitted JIRAs that
>>> touch FSImage/FSEditLog that would be great, then we can work from there on
>>> how to proceed and minimize the amount of patch rebasing we all have to do.
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Software Engineer, Cloudera