Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS >> mail # dev >> [VOTE] Commit hdfs-1024 to 0.20 branch


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Commit hdfs-1024 to 0.20 branch
+1

I also thought that version mismatch is FB specific.
Other people will not be able to run different versions of NN and SNN.
--Konstantin

On 4/2/2010 10:41 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Stack<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>
>> >  Please on committing HDFS-1024 to the hadoop 0.20 branch.
>> >
>> >  Background:
>> >
>> >  HDFS-1024 fixes possible trashing of fsimage because of failed copy
>> >  from 2NN and NN.  Ordinarily, possible corruption of this proportion
>> >  would merit commit w/o need of a vote only Dhruba correctly notes that
>> >  UNLESS both NN and 2NN are upgraded, HDFS-1024 becomes an incompatible
>> >  change (the NN<->2NN communication will fail always).  IMO, this
>> >  incompatible change can be plastered over with a release note; e.g.
>> >  WARNING, you MUST update NN and 2NN when you go to 0.20.3 hadoop.  If
>> >  you agree with me, please vote +1 on commit.
>> >
> +1. If I recall correctly the NN and 2NN already do a very strict version
> check in branch 20, so it's not any more incompatible than any other change.
> (I think Dhruba made the version check less strict in the FB branch)
>
> -Todd
>
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB