FAQ
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.

Thanks,
St.Ack

Search Discussions

  • Todd Lipcon at Apr 2, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Stack 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



    --
    Todd Lipcon
    Software Engineer, Cloudera
  • Konstantin Shvachko at Apr 5, 2010 at 9:19 pm
    +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, Stackwrote:
    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
  • Dhruba Borthakur at Apr 3, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    + 1


    On 4/2/10, Stack 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.

    Thanks,
    St.Ack
    --
    Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

    Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
  • Andrew Purtell at Apr 3, 2010 at 7:56 pm
    +1
    On 4/2/10, Stack 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.
  • Hairong Kuang at Apr 5, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    +1 Good catch!

    Hairong
    On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:

    +1
    On 4/2/10, Stack 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.



  • Jakob Homan at Apr 5, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    +1.

    Hairong Kuang wrote:
    +1 Good catch!

    Hairong
    On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:

    +1
    On 4/2/10, Stack 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.


  • Jean-Daniel Cryans at Apr 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm
    +1

    J-D
    On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Stack 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.

    Thanks,
    St.Ack

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouphdfs-dev @
categorieshadoop
postedApr 2, '10 at 5:39p
activeApr 5, '10 at 9:19p
posts8
users8
websitehadoop.apache.org...
irc#hadoop

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase