You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org by Stack <st...@duboce.net> on 2010/02/03 07:22:50 UTC
[VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
0.20 and to 0.21.
HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
"DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
St.Ack
Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
+1
(btw is there anything we can do about the maniacal spam classifier on
this list? it marked my first three attempts to +1 this patch as
spam...)
-Todd
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Eli Collins <el...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
> > 0.20 and to 0.21.
> >
> > HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
> > location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
> > "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
> > unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
> > voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
> > only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
> >
> > High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
> > read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
> > there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
> > rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
> > raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
> >
> > HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
> >
> > I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
> > St.Ack
> >
Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Posted by Eli Collins <el...@cloudera.com>.
+1
Thanks,
Eli
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
> 0.20 and to 0.21.
>
> HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
> location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
> "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
> unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
> voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
> http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
> only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
>
> High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
> read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
> there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
> rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
> raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
>
> HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
>
> I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
> St.Ack
>
Fwd: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Please vote on below. Be sure to put your vote up on hdfs-dev. Thanks all.
St.Ack
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Date: Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
0.20 and to 0.21.
HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
"DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
St.Ack
Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Posted by "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <s2...@yahoo.com>.
+1
Nicholas Sze
----- Original Message ----
> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 10:22:50 PM
> Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
>
> I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
> 0.20 and to 0.21.
>
> HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
> location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
> "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
> unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
> voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
> http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
> only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
>
> High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
> read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
> there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
> rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
> raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
>
> HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
>
> I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
> St.Ack
Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Vote is closed (unless there is objection). I'll commit below in next
day or so.
Thanks to all who participated.
St.Ack
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Given people have had several days to vote, and there have been no
> -1s, this should be good to go in, right? We have two HDFS committer
> +1s (Stack and Nicholas) and nonbinding +1s from several others.
>
> Thanks
> -Todd
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
> <s2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is a friendly reminder for voting on committing HDFD-927 to 0.20 and 0.21.
>>
>> Comiitters, please vote!
>>
>> Nicholas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> > From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
>> > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 10:22:50 PM
>> > Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
>> >
>> > I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
>> > 0.20 and to 0.21.
>> >
>> > HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
>> > location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
>> > "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
>> > unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
>> > voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
>> > only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
>> >
>> > High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
>> > read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
>> > there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
>> > rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
>> > raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
>> >
>> > HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
>> >
>> > I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
>> >
>> > Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
>> > St.Ack
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Given people have had several days to vote, and there have been no
-1s, this should be good to go in, right? We have two HDFS committer
+1s (Stack and Nicholas) and nonbinding +1s from several others.
Thanks
-Todd
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
<s2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is a friendly reminder for voting on committing HDFD-927 to 0.20 and 0.21.
>
> Comiitters, please vote!
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 10:22:50 PM
> > Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
> >
> > I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
> > 0.20 and to 0.21.
> >
> > HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
> > location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
> > "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
> > unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
> > voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
> > only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
> >
> > High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
> > read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
> > there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
> > rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
> > raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
> >
> > HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
> >
> > I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
> > St.Ack
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
Posted by "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" <s2...@yahoo.com>.
This is a friendly reminder for voting on committing HDFD-927 to 0.20 and 0.21.
Comiitters, please vote!
Nicholas
----- Original Message ----
> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 10:22:50 PM
> Subject: [VOTE] Commit HDFS-927 to both 0.20 and 0.21 branch?
>
> I'd like to open a vote on committing HDFS-927 to both hadoop branch
> 0.20 and to 0.21.
>
> HDFS-927 "DFSInputStream retries too many times for new block
> location" has an odd summary but in short, its a better HDFS-127
> "DFSClient block read failures cause open DFSInputStream to become
> unusable". HDFS-127 is an old, popular issue that refuses to die. We
> voted on having it committed to the 0.20 branch not too long ago, see
> http://www.mail-archive.com/hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org/msg00401.html,
> only it broke TestFsck (See http://su.pr/1nylUn) so it was reverted.
>
> High-level, HDFS-127/HDFS-927 is about fixing DFSClient so it a good
> read cleans out the failures count (Previous failures 'stuck' though
> there may have been hours of successful reads in betwixt). When
> rolling hadoop 0.20.2 was proposed, a few fellas including myself
> raised a lack of HDFS-127 as an obstacle.
>
> HDFS-927 has been committed to TRUNK.
>
> I'm +1 on committing to 0.20 and to 0.21 branches.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to take a look into this issue.
> St.Ack