You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org by Mi...@emc.com on 2011/09/07 20:22:53 UTC
MRv1 in 0.23+
Folks,
Has the community decided how long MRv1 will remain part of the codebase,
after 0.23 ? The reason I am asking is, for those who are working on
forward porting LinuxTaskController fixes (from 0.20.2xx) to 0.22, will
they have to patch 0.23 and trunk as well ? Or should these branches be
left alone ?
- Milind
---
Milind Bhandarkar
Greenplum Labs, EMC
(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and
do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
present, the author might be affiliated with.)
Re: MRv1 in 0.23+
Posted by Eli Collins <el...@cloudera.com>.
I couldn't find one so I filed MAPREDUCE-2955.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Eli Collins <el...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Is there a jira for that? Seems like most tests wouldn't be MR1 specific.
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> There is a MiniYarnCluster and a MiniMRYarnCluster, it is just that the tests have not been ported over to use them yet.
>>
>> --Bobby
>>
>> On 9/7/11 2:01 PM, "Eli Collins" <el...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that the MR1 code is currently needed to run the tests
>> because there is no Mini MR cluster for MR2. So the code is needed until
>> the tests can run against MR2 (not sure if there's an effort underway).
>> However, see MR-2736, if we remove the ability to run the daemons I don't
>> think we need to maintain eg the code for security patches. Ie seems like 23
>> and trunk should be able to ignore the LTC fixes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eli
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM, <Mi...@emc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Has the community decided how long MRv1 will remain part of the codebase,
>>> after 0.23 ? The reason I am asking is, for those who are working on
>>> forward porting LinuxTaskController fixes (from 0.20.2xx) to 0.22, will
>>> they have to patch 0.23 and trunk as well ? Or should these branches be
>>> left alone ?
>>>
>>> - Milind
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Milind Bhandarkar
>>> Greenplum Labs, EMC
>>> (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and
>>> do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
>>> present, the author might be affiliated with.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: MRv1 in 0.23+
Posted by Eli Collins <el...@cloudera.com>.
Is there a jira for that? Seems like most tests wouldn't be MR1 specific.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> There is a MiniYarnCluster and a MiniMRYarnCluster, it is just that the tests have not been ported over to use them yet.
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 9/7/11 2:01 PM, "Eli Collins" <el...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that the MR1 code is currently needed to run the tests
> because there is no Mini MR cluster for MR2. So the code is needed until
> the tests can run against MR2 (not sure if there's an effort underway).
> However, see MR-2736, if we remove the ability to run the daemons I don't
> think we need to maintain eg the code for security patches. Ie seems like 23
> and trunk should be able to ignore the LTC fixes.
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM, <Mi...@emc.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Has the community decided how long MRv1 will remain part of the codebase,
>> after 0.23 ? The reason I am asking is, for those who are working on
>> forward porting LinuxTaskController fixes (from 0.20.2xx) to 0.22, will
>> they have to patch 0.23 and trunk as well ? Or should these branches be
>> left alone ?
>>
>> - Milind
>>
>> ---
>> Milind Bhandarkar
>> Greenplum Labs, EMC
>> (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and
>> do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
>> present, the author might be affiliated with.)
>>
>>
>
>
Re: MRv1 in 0.23+
Posted by Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>.
There is a MiniYarnCluster and a MiniMRYarnCluster, it is just that the tests have not been ported over to use them yet.
--Bobby
On 9/7/11 2:01 PM, "Eli Collins" <el...@cloudera.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the MR1 code is currently needed to run the tests
because there is no Mini MR cluster for MR2. So the code is needed until
the tests can run against MR2 (not sure if there's an effort underway).
However, see MR-2736, if we remove the ability to run the daemons I don't
think we need to maintain eg the code for security patches. Ie seems like 23
and trunk should be able to ignore the LTC fixes.
Thanks,
Eli
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM, <Mi...@emc.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Has the community decided how long MRv1 will remain part of the codebase,
> after 0.23 ? The reason I am asking is, for those who are working on
> forward porting LinuxTaskController fixes (from 0.20.2xx) to 0.22, will
> they have to patch 0.23 and trunk as well ? Or should these branches be
> left alone ?
>
> - Milind
>
> ---
> Milind Bhandarkar
> Greenplum Labs, EMC
> (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and
> do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
> present, the author might be affiliated with.)
>
>
Re: MRv1 in 0.23+
Posted by Mi...@emc.com.
Thanks for the prompt response Eli. In effect, MRv1 is not supprted in
0.23 onwards, and so LTC should not be patched in those releases. (I
searched the mailing lists, but could not see it said explicitly.)
- Milind
---
Milind Bhandarkar
Greenplum Labs, EMC
(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and
do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
present, the author might be affiliated with.)
On 9/7/11 12:01 PM, "Eli Collins" <el...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>My understanding is that the MR1 code is currently needed to run the tests
>because there is no Mini MR cluster for MR2. So the code is needed until
>the tests can run against MR2 (not sure if there's an effort underway).
>However, see MR-2736, if we remove the ability to run the daemons I don't
>think we need to maintain eg the code for security patches. Ie seems like
>23
>and trunk should be able to ignore the LTC fixes.
>
>Thanks,
>Eli
>
>On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM, <Mi...@emc.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Has the community decided how long MRv1 will remain part of the
>>codebase,
>> after 0.23 ? The reason I am asking is, for those who are working on
>> forward porting LinuxTaskController fixes (from 0.20.2xx) to 0.22, will
>> they have to patch 0.23 and trunk as well ? Or should these branches be
>> left alone ?
>>
>> - Milind
>>
>> ---
>> Milind Bhandarkar
>> Greenplum Labs, EMC
>> (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
>>and
>> do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
>> present, the author might be affiliated with.)
>>
>>
Re: MRv1 in 0.23+
Posted by Eli Collins <el...@cloudera.com>.
My understanding is that the MR1 code is currently needed to run the tests
because there is no Mini MR cluster for MR2. So the code is needed until
the tests can run against MR2 (not sure if there's an effort underway).
However, see MR-2736, if we remove the ability to run the daemons I don't
think we need to maintain eg the code for security patches. Ie seems like 23
and trunk should be able to ignore the LTC fixes.
Thanks,
Eli
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM, <Mi...@emc.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Has the community decided how long MRv1 will remain part of the codebase,
> after 0.23 ? The reason I am asking is, for those who are working on
> forward porting LinuxTaskController fixes (from 0.20.2xx) to 0.22, will
> they have to patch 0.23 and trunk as well ? Or should these branches be
> left alone ?
>
> - Milind
>
> ---
> Milind Bhandarkar
> Greenplum Labs, EMC
> (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and
> do not necessarily represent the views of any organization, past or
> present, the author might be affiliated with.)
>
>