You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@hadoop.apache.org by Vinayakumar B <vi...@huawei.com> on 2016/07/27 06:14:44 UTC

[DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Hi All,

   BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
   Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many production environment.
   I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?

   Are there any users of BKJM exists?

-Vinay

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Kihwal Lee <ki...@yahoo-inc.com>.
+1

      From: Brahma Reddy Battula <br...@huawei.com>
 To: "Gangumalla, Uma" <um...@intel.com>; Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>; Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> 
Cc: "dev@bookkeeper.apache.org" <de...@bookkeeper.apache.org>; Uma gangumalla <um...@apache.org>; Vinayakumar B <vi...@huawei.com>; "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hd...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@hadoop.apache.org" <us...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@bookkeeper.apache.org" <us...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:21 AM
 Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?
   

Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com] 
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; user@hadoop.apache.org; user@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope 
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this 
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from 
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, 
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing 
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was 
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth 
>><cn...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >    Hi All,
>> >
>> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA 
>> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by 
>> > many production environment.
>> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> >    -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Kihwal Lee <ki...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
+1

      From: Brahma Reddy Battula <br...@huawei.com>
 To: "Gangumalla, Uma" <um...@intel.com>; Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>; Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> 
Cc: "dev@bookkeeper.apache.org" <de...@bookkeeper.apache.org>; Uma gangumalla <um...@apache.org>; Vinayakumar B <vi...@huawei.com>; "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hd...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@hadoop.apache.org" <us...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@bookkeeper.apache.org" <us...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:21 AM
 Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?
   

Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com] 
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; user@hadoop.apache.org; user@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope 
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this 
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from 
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, 
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing 
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was 
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth 
>><cn...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >    Hi All,
>> >
>> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA 
>> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by 
>> > many production environment.
>> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> >    -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Kihwal Lee <ki...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
+1

      From: Brahma Reddy Battula <br...@huawei.com>
 To: "Gangumalla, Uma" <um...@intel.com>; Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>; Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> 
Cc: "dev@bookkeeper.apache.org" <de...@bookkeeper.apache.org>; Uma gangumalla <um...@apache.org>; Vinayakumar B <vi...@huawei.com>; "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hd...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@hadoop.apache.org" <us...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@bookkeeper.apache.org" <us...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:21 AM
 Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?
   

Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com] 
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; user@hadoop.apache.org; user@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope 
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this 
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from 
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, 
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing 
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was 
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth 
>><cn...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >    Hi All,
>> >
>> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA 
>> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by 
>> > many production environment.
>> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> >    -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Kihwal Lee <ki...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
+1

      From: Brahma Reddy Battula <br...@huawei.com>
 To: "Gangumalla, Uma" <um...@intel.com>; Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>; Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> 
Cc: "dev@bookkeeper.apache.org" <de...@bookkeeper.apache.org>; Uma gangumalla <um...@apache.org>; Vinayakumar B <vi...@huawei.com>; "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hd...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@hadoop.apache.org" <us...@hadoop.apache.org>; "user@bookkeeper.apache.org" <us...@bookkeeper.apache.org>
 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:21 AM
 Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?
   

Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com] 
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; user@hadoop.apache.org; user@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope 
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this 
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from 
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, 
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing 
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was 
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth 
>><cn...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >    Hi All,
>> >
>> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA 
>> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by 
>> > many production environment.
>> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> >    -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Brahma Reddy Battula <br...@huawei.com>.
Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com] 
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; user@hadoop.apache.org; user@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope 
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this 
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from 
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, 
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing 
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was 
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth 
>><cn...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >     Hi All,
>> >
>> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA 
>> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by 
>> > many production environment.
>> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> >     -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Brahma Reddy Battula <br...@huawei.com>.
Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel.com] 
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; user@hadoop.apache.org; user@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope 
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this 
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from 
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, 
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing 
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was 
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth 
>><cn...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >     Hi All,
>> >
>> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA 
>> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by 
>> > many production environment.
>> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> >     -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by "Gangumalla, Uma" <um...@intel.com>.
For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM
stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they
should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope @Vinay
>might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this e-mail
>discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from the trunk
>code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing these
>jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was
>>using
>> it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth
>><cn...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >     Hi All,
>> >
>> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
>> > implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
>> > production environment.
>> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> >     -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>.
If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope @Vinay
might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this e-mail
discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from the trunk
code.

Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing these
jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?

Thanks,
Rakesh
Intel

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:

> + Rakesh and Uma
>
> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
> it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
> >
> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would
> be
> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
> >
> > --Chris Nauroth
> >
> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi All,
> >
> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> > implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> > production environment.
> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
> trunk?
> >
> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
> >
> >     -Vinay
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>.
If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope @Vinay
might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this e-mail
discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from the trunk
code.

Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing these
jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?

Thanks,
Rakesh
Intel

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:

> + Rakesh and Uma
>
> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
> it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
> >
> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would
> be
> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
> >
> > --Chris Nauroth
> >
> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi All,
> >
> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> > implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> > production environment.
> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
> trunk?
> >
> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
> >
> >     -Vinay
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>.
If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope @Vinay
might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this e-mail
discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from the trunk
code.

Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing these
jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?

Thanks,
Rakesh
Intel

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:

> + Rakesh and Uma
>
> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
> it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
> >
> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would
> be
> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
> >
> > --Chris Nauroth
> >
> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi All,
> >
> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> > implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> > production environment.
> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
> trunk?
> >
> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
> >
> >     -Vinay
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@apache.org>.
If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope @Vinay
might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this e-mail
discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from the trunk
code.

Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing these
jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?

Thanks,
Rakesh
Intel

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote:

> + Rakesh and Uma
>
> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
> it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
> >
> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would
> be
> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
> >
> > --Chris Nauroth
> >
> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi All,
> >
> >        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> > implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
> >        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> > production environment.
> >        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
> trunk?
> >
> >        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
> >
> >     -Vinay
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>.
+ Rakesh and Uma

Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.

- Sijie

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>
> I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be
> attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
>
> --Chris Nauroth
>
> On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> production environment.
>        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
>
>        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>
>     -Vinay
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>.
+ Rakesh and Uma

Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.

- Sijie

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>
> I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be
> attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
>
> --Chris Nauroth
>
> On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> production environment.
>        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
>
>        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>
>     -Vinay
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>.
+ Rakesh and Uma

Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.

- Sijie

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>
> I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be
> attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
>
> --Chris Nauroth
>
> On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> production environment.
>        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
>
>        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>
>     -Vinay
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>.
+ Rakesh and Uma

Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.

- Sijie

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve
> added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>
> I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be
> attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if
> we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.
>
> --Chris Nauroth
>
> On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>        BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was
> implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>        Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many
> production environment.
>        I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
>
>        Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>
>     -Vinay
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>.
I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.

I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.

--Chris Nauroth

On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:

    Hi All,
    
       BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
       Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many production environment.
       I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
    
       Are there any users of BKJM exists?
    
    -Vinay

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>.
I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.

I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.

--Chris Nauroth

On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:

    Hi All,
    
       BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
       Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many production environment.
       I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
    
       Are there any users of BKJM exists?
    
    -Vinay
    


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>.
I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.

I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.

--Chris Nauroth

On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:

    Hi All,
    
       BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
       Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many production environment.
       I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
    
       Are there any users of BKJM exists?
    
    -Vinay

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Posted by Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>.
I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.  I’ve added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.

I do not see BKJM being used in practice.  Removing it from trunk would be attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build, but if we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn’t object.

--Chris Nauroth

On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vi...@huawei.com> wrote:

    Hi All,
    
       BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
       Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by many production environment.
       I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from trunk?
    
       Are there any users of BKJM exists?
    
    -Vinay
    


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org