You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> on 2010/01/28 03:14:43 UTC
Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
So the list of HDFS issues for next 0.20.x or 0.21 most relevant to HBase
stability I have is:
127
200 (well, hflush)
630
793
Sound about right? Anything important I'm missing?
- Andy
----- Original Message ----
> From: Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 9:14:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
>
> I don't think 101 is a real blocker - I haven't been able to reliably
> produce it. HDFS-793 fixes most of the issues I've seen in practice, and we
> now have a new patch in branch-20 which should fix that.
>
> 127 would be nice - there's a patch on that JIRA waiting for review as
> below.
>
> -Todd
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Stack wrote:
>
> > If the new release included (fixedup) hdfs-127 and hdfs-101, the hbase
> > crew would be big fans of an hadoop 0.20.2.
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> > > HDFS-127 was originally committed, then rolled back from 0.20 as it
> > caused
> > > test timeouts due to infinite loop. I put a new patch up there but it has
> > > not been reviewed, and thus not committed.
> > >
> > > Owen: is there a particular rush for 0.20.2 or can we hold out for these
> > > patches?
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > 2010/1/26 Kay Kay
> > >
> > >> Is HDFS-127 going to be part of it ? (seems to have been committed as
> > per
> > >> the jira).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1/26/10 6:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:56AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'm planning on rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 today. Are there any blockers
> > >>>> that can't wait?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Owen
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Cosmin Lehene <cl...@adobe.com> wrote:
> HDFS-909 left us with a corrupted HDFS
>
>
Given there isn't yet a patch against branch-20 for HDFS-909, I don't think
we should block a release for it. There's nothing preventing us from
releasing 0.20.3 later.
-Todd
>
>
> On 1/28/10 4:14 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > So the list of HDFS issues for next 0.20.x or 0.21 most relevant to HBase
> > stability I have is:
> >
> > 127
> > 200 (well, hflush)
> > 630
> > 793
> >
> >
> > Sound about right? Anything important I'm missing?
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> >> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> >> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 9:14:01 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
> >>
> >> I don't think 101 is a real blocker - I haven't been able to reliably
> >> produce it. HDFS-793 fixes most of the issues I've seen in practice, and
> we
> >> now have a new patch in branch-20 which should fix that.
> >>
> >> 127 would be nice - there's a patch on that JIRA waiting for review as
> >> below.
> >>
> >> -Todd
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Stack wrote:
> >>
> >>> If the new release included (fixedup) hdfs-127 and hdfs-101, the hbase
> >>> crew would be big fans of an hadoop 0.20.2.
> >>> St.Ack
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> >>>> HDFS-127 was originally committed, then rolled back from 0.20 as it
> >>> caused
> >>>> test timeouts due to infinite loop. I put a new patch up there but it
> has
> >>>> not been reviewed, and thus not committed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Owen: is there a particular rush for 0.20.2 or can we hold out for
> these
> >>>> patches?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Todd
> >>>>
> >>>> 2010/1/26 Kay Kay
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is HDFS-127 going to be part of it ? (seems to have been committed
> as
> >>> per
> >>>>> the jira).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 1/26/10 6:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:56AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm planning on rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 today. Are there any
> blockers
> >>>>>>> that can't wait?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -- Owen
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
Posted by Cosmin Lehene <cl...@adobe.com>.
HDFS-909 left us with a corrupted HDFS
Cosmin
On 1/28/10 4:14 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> So the list of HDFS issues for next 0.20.x or 0.21 most relevant to HBase
> stability I have is:
>
> 127
> 200 (well, hflush)
> 630
> 793
>
>
> Sound about right? Anything important I'm missing?
>
> - Andy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
>> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 9:14:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
>>
>> I don't think 101 is a real blocker - I haven't been able to reliably
>> produce it. HDFS-793 fixes most of the issues I've seen in practice, and we
>> now have a new patch in branch-20 which should fix that.
>>
>> 127 would be nice - there's a patch on that JIRA waiting for review as
>> below.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Stack wrote:
>>
>>> If the new release included (fixedup) hdfs-127 and hdfs-101, the hbase
>>> crew would be big fans of an hadoop 0.20.2.
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>>>> HDFS-127 was originally committed, then rolled back from 0.20 as it
>>> caused
>>>> test timeouts due to infinite loop. I put a new patch up there but it has
>>>> not been reviewed, and thus not committed.
>>>>
>>>> Owen: is there a particular rush for 0.20.2 or can we hold out for these
>>>> patches?
>>>>
>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>> 2010/1/26 Kay Kay
>>>>
>>>>> Is HDFS-127 going to be part of it ? (seems to have been committed as
>>> per
>>>>> the jira).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/26/10 6:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:56AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm planning on rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 today. Are there any blockers
>>>>>>> that can't wait?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Owen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
Posted by Cosmin Lehene <cl...@adobe.com>.
HDFS-909 left us with a corrupted HDFS
Cosmin
On 1/28/10 4:14 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> So the list of HDFS issues for next 0.20.x or 0.21 most relevant to HBase
> stability I have is:
>
> 127
> 200 (well, hflush)
> 630
> 793
>
>
> Sound about right? Anything important I'm missing?
>
> - Andy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
>> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 9:14:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2
>>
>> I don't think 101 is a real blocker - I haven't been able to reliably
>> produce it. HDFS-793 fixes most of the issues I've seen in practice, and we
>> now have a new patch in branch-20 which should fix that.
>>
>> 127 would be nice - there's a patch on that JIRA waiting for review as
>> below.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Stack wrote:
>>
>>> If the new release included (fixedup) hdfs-127 and hdfs-101, the hbase
>>> crew would be big fans of an hadoop 0.20.2.
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>>>> HDFS-127 was originally committed, then rolled back from 0.20 as it
>>> caused
>>>> test timeouts due to infinite loop. I put a new patch up there but it has
>>>> not been reviewed, and thus not committed.
>>>>
>>>> Owen: is there a particular rush for 0.20.2 or can we hold out for these
>>>> patches?
>>>>
>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>> 2010/1/26 Kay Kay
>>>>
>>>>> Is HDFS-127 going to be part of it ? (seems to have been committed as
>>> per
>>>>> the jira).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/26/10 6:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:56AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm planning on rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 today. Are there any blockers
>>>>>>> that can't wait?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Owen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>