|
Benjamin Reed
2011-03-18, 21:11
Benjamin Reed
2011-03-18, 21:11
Michi Mutsuzaki
2011-03-18, 21:16
Flavio Junqueira
2011-03-18, 21:18
Patrick Hunt
2011-03-18, 21:26
Mahadev Konar
2011-03-18, 21:29
Utkarsh Srivastava
2011-03-18, 21:40
Ivan Kelly
2011-03-21, 10:03
Henry Robinson
2011-03-21, 23:39
Benjamin Reed
2011-03-23, 04:28
|
-
[VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalBenjamin Reed 2011-03-18, 21:11
Proposal
BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and distribute messages. Background BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). Rational We have contributors that we would like to make committers to BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development community to grow around BookKeeper. Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing so would double the project management and release overhead. The development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of contributors. Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. Call for vote I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter)
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalBenjamin Reed 2011-03-18, 21:11
+1 i'm all for it of course :)
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal > > BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is > built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and > reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed > tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store > large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which > we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a > client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. > > The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub > system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with > BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper > were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of > a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and > distribute messages. > > Background > > BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also > used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs > to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate > BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). > > Rational > > We have contributors that we would like to make committers to > BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development > community to grow around BookKeeper. > > Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own > subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. > > We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper > releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release > cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. > > In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing > so would double the project management and release overhead. The > development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, > so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of > contributors. > > Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact > that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we > think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. > > Call for vote > > I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to > ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the > proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: > > Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) > Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) > Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) > Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) > Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter) >
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalMichi Mutsuzaki 2011-03-18, 21:16
+1. Ben, thank you for your proposal.
--Michi On 3/18/11 2:11 PM, "Benjamin Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 i'm all for it of course :) > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proposal >> >> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is >> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and >> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed >> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store >> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which >> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a >> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. >> >> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub >> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with >> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper >> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of >> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and >> distribute messages. >> >> Background >> >> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also >> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs >> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate >> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). >> >> Rational >> >> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to >> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development >> community to grow around BookKeeper. >> >> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own >> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. >> >> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper >> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release >> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. >> >> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing >> so would double the project management and release overhead. The >> development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, >> so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of >> contributors. >> >> Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact >> that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we >> think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. >> >> Call for vote >> >> I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to >> ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the >> proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: >> >> Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) >> Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) >> Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) >> Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) >> Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter) >> >
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalFlavio Junqueira 2011-03-18, 21:18
+1.
-Flavio On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: > +1 i'm all for it of course :) > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Proposal >> >> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is >> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and >> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed >> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store >> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which >> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a >> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. >> >> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub >> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with >> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of >> BookKeeper >> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of >> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and >> distribute messages. >> >> Background >> >> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was >> also >> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs >> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate >> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). >> >> Rational >> >> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to >> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development >> community to grow around BookKeeper. >> >> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own >> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. >> >> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper >> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release >> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. >> >> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing >> so would double the project management and release overhead. The >> development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, >> so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of >> contributors. >> >> Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the >> fact >> that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we >> think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. >> >> Call for vote >> >> I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to >> ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the >> proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: >> >> Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) >> Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) >> Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) >> Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) >> Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter) >> flavio junqueira research scientist [EMAIL PROTECTED] direct +34 93-183-8828 avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalPatrick Hunt 2011-03-18, 21:26
-0. I'm all for bk/hedwig moving out from contrib, but as I stated earlier I
think it should move to incubator and not subproject. At the same time it's important that the project can develop on it's own, so I won't stand in the way. Patrick On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1. > > -Flavio > > On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: > > +1 i'm all for it of course :) > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Proposal > > > BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is > > built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and > > reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed > > tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store > > large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which > > we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a > > client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. > > > The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub > > system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with > > BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper > > were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of > > a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and > > distribute messages. > > > Background > > > BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also > > used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs > > to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate > > BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). > > > Rational > > > We have contributors that we would like to make committers to > > BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development > > community to grow around BookKeeper. > > > Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own > > subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. > > > We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper > > releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release > > cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. > > > In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing > > so would double the project management and release overhead. The > > development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, > > so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of > > contributors. > > > Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact > > that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we > > think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. > > > Call for vote > > > I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to > > ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the > > proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: > > > Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) > > Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) > > Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) > > Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) > > Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter) > > > > *flavio* > *junqueira* > > research scientist > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > direct +34 93-183-8828 > > avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es > phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 > > >
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalMahadev Konar 2011-03-18, 21:29
+1.
thanks mahadev On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -0. I'm all for bk/hedwig moving out from contrib, but as I stated earlier > I think it should move to incubator and not subproject. At the same time > it's important that the project can develop on it's own, so I won't stand in > the way. > > Patrick > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> +1. >> >> -Flavio >> >> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: >> >> +1 i'm all for it of course :) >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Proposal >> >> >> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is >> >> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and >> >> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed >> >> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store >> >> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which >> >> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a >> >> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. >> >> >> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub >> >> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with >> >> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper >> >> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of >> >> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and >> >> distribute messages. >> >> >> Background >> >> >> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also >> >> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs >> >> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate >> >> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). >> >> >> Rational >> >> >> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to >> >> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development >> >> community to grow around BookKeeper. >> >> >> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own >> >> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. >> >> >> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper >> >> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release >> >> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. >> >> >> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing >> >> so would double the project management and release overhead. The >> >> development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, >> >> so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of >> >> contributors. >> >> >> Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact >> >> that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we >> >> think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. >> >> >> Call for vote >> >> >> I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to >> >> ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the >> >> proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: >> >> >> Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) >> >> Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) >> >> Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) >> >> Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) >> >> Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter) >> >> >> >> *flavio* >> *junqueira* >> >> research scientist >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> direct +34 93-183-8828 >> >> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es >> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 >> >> >> >
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalUtkarsh Srivastava 2011-03-18, 21:40
+1
Utkarsh On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1. > > thanks > mahadev > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> -0. I'm all for bk/hedwig moving out from contrib, but as I stated earlier >> I think it should move to incubator and not subproject. At the same time >> it's important that the project can develop on it's own, so I won't stand in >> the way. >> >> Patrick >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> +1. >>> >>> -Flavio >>> >>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: >>> >>> +1 i'm all for it of course :) >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Proposal >>> >>> >>> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is >>> >>> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and >>> >>> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed >>> >>> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store >>> >>> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which >>> >>> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a >>> >>> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. >>> >>> >>> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub >>> >>> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with >>> >>> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper >>> >>> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of >>> >>> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and >>> >>> distribute messages. >>> >>> >>> Background >>> >>> >>> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also >>> >>> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs >>> >>> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate >>> >>> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). >>> >>> >>> Rational >>> >>> >>> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to >>> >>> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development >>> >>> community to grow around BookKeeper. >>> >>> >>> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own >>> >>> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. >>> >>> >>> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper >>> >>> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release >>> >>> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. >>> >>> >>> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing >>> >>> so would double the project management and release overhead. The >>> >>> development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, >>> >>> so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of >>> >>> contributors. >>> >>> >>> Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact >>> >>> that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we >>> >>> think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. >>> >>> >>> Call for vote >>> >>> >>> I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to >>> >>> ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the >>> >>> proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: >>> >>> >>> Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) >>> >>> Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) >>> >>> Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) >>> >>> Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) >>> >>> Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter) >>> >>> >>> >>> *flavio* >>> *junqueira* >>> >>> research scientist >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> direct +34 93-183-8828 >>> >>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es >>> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 >>> >>> >>> >> >
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalIvan Kelly 2011-03-21, 10:03
+1
On 18 Mar 2011, at 22:40, Utkarsh Srivastava wrote: > +1 > > Utkarsh > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +1. >> >> thanks >> mahadev >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> -0. I'm all for bk/hedwig moving out from contrib, but as I stated earlier >>> I think it should move to incubator and not subproject. At the same time >>> it's important that the project can develop on it's own, so I won't stand in >>> the way. >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>>> +1. >>>> >>>> -Flavio >>>> >>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 i'm all for it of course :) >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Proposal >>>> >>>> >>>> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is >>>> >>>> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and >>>> >>>> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed >>>> >>>> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store >>>> >>>> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which >>>> >>>> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a >>>> >>>> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. >>>> >>>> >>>> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub >>>> >>>> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with >>>> >>>> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper >>>> >>>> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of >>>> >>>> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and >>>> >>>> distribute messages. >>>> >>>> >>>> Background >>>> >>>> >>>> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also >>>> >>>> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs >>>> >>>> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate >>>> >>>> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). >>>> >>>> >>>> Rational >>>> >>>> >>>> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to >>>> >>>> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development >>>> >>>> community to grow around BookKeeper. >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own >>>> >>>> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. >>>> >>>> >>>> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper >>>> >>>> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release >>>> >>>> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. >>>> >>>> >>>> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing >>>> >>>> so would double the project management and release overhead. The >>>> >>>> development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, >>>> >>>> so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of >>>> >>>> contributors. >>>> >>>> >>>> Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact >>>> >>>> that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we >>>> >>>> think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper. >>>> >>>> >>>> Call for vote >>>> >>>> >>>> I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to >>>> >>>> ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the >>>> >>>> proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook) >>>> >>>> Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo) >>>> >>>> Ivan Kelly (Yahoo) >>>> >>>> Benjamin Reed (Yahoo) >>>> >>>> Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *flavio* >>>> *junqueira* >>>> >>>> research scientist >>>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> direct +34 93-183-8828 >>>> >>>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalHenry Robinson 2011-03-21, 23:39
I'm -0 as well - I really think that incubator is the logical place for both
BookKeeper and Hedwig, and gives them the best chance of establishing their own communities and independence from ZooKeeper. My expectation is that both projects will have to move out from under the ZK umbrella eventually, and there is little to be gained from putting it off. That said, I'm excited to see both projects moving forward, and subproject is definitely significantly better than contrib, so I'm not prepared to veto this. Henry On 21 March 2011 03:03, Ivan Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 22:40, Utkarsh Srivastava wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Utkarsh > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> +1. > >> > >> thanks > >> mahadev > >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> -0. I'm all for bk/hedwig moving out from contrib, but as I stated > earlier > >>> I think it should move to incubator and not subproject. At the same > time > >>> it's important that the project can develop on it's own, so I won't > stand in > >>> the way. > >>> > >>> Patrick > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1. > >>>> > >>>> -Flavio > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 i'm all for it of course :) > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Proposal > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is > >>>> > >>>> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and > >>>> > >>>> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed > >>>> > >>>> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store > >>>> > >>>> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which > >>>> > >>>> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a > >>>> > >>>> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub > >>>> > >>>> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with > >>>> > >>>> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper > >>>> > >>>> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of > >>>> > >>>> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and > >>>> > >>>> distribute messages. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Background > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also > >>>> > >>>> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs > >>>> > >>>> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate > >>>> > >>>> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Rational > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to > >>>> > >>>> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development > >>>> > >>>> community to grow around BookKeeper. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own > >>>> > >>>> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper > >>>> > >>>> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release > >>>> > >>>> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing > >>>> > >>>> so would double the project management and release overhead. The > >>>> > >>>> development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily, > >>>> > >>>> so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of > >>>> > >>>> contributors. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact > >>>> Henry Robinson Software Engineer Cloudera 415-994-6679
-
Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper (including Hedwig) subproject proposalBenjamin Reed 2011-03-23, 04:28
with three binding +1s, two binding -0s, and no -1s the vote passes. i
will begin the process of setting up the subproject. thanx everyone! ben On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Henry Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm -0 as well - I really think that incubator is the logical place for both > BookKeeper and Hedwig, and gives them the best chance of establishing their > own communities and independence from ZooKeeper. My expectation is that both > projects will have to move out from under the ZK umbrella eventually, and > there is little to be gained from putting it off. > > That said, I'm excited to see both projects moving forward, and subproject > is definitely significantly better than contrib, so I'm not prepared to veto > this. > > Henry > > > > On 21 March 2011 03:03, Ivan Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 22:40, Utkarsh Srivastava wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > Utkarsh >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> +1. >> >> >> >> thanks >> >> mahadev >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> -0. I'm all for bk/hedwig moving out from contrib, but as I stated >> earlier >> >>> I think it should move to incubator and not subproject. At the same >> time >> >>> it's important that the project can develop on it's own, so I won't >> stand in >> >>> the way. >> >>> >> >>> Patrick >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> +1. >> >>>> >> >>>> -Flavio >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 i'm all for it of course :) >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Proposal >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is >> >>>> >> >>>> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and >> >>>> >> >>>> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed >> >>>> >> >>>> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store >> >>>> >> >>>> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which >> >>>> >> >>>> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a >> >>>> >> >>>> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub >> >>>> >> >>>> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with >> >>>> >> >>>> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper >> >>>> >> >>>> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of >> >>>> >> >>>> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and >> >>>> >> >>>> distribute messages. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Background >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also >> >>>> >> >>>> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs >> >>>> >> >>>> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate >> >>>> >> >>>> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580). >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Rational >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to >> >>>> >> >>>> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development >> >>>> >> >>>> community to grow around BookKeeper. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own >> >>>> >> >>>> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper >> >>>> >> >>>> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release >> >>>> >> >>>> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing >> >>> |