[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-930?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tom White updated HADOOP-930:
-----------------------------
Attachment: hadoop-930-v5.patch
New patch that works with trunk.
bq. I think Jets3t does validate MD5 checksums on reads - but I'll double check.
This isn't true, Jets3t doesn't validate MD5 checksums on reads. In fact the
stream is sent straight to the client, so it's not possible in general to
validate the MD5 checksum - particularly when doing seeks, which use range
GETs. Contrast this with S3FileSystem which retrieves data in blocks, so it
would be easy to add checksum validate there (I've opened HADOOP-3494 for
this). For this issue, I think we should just have write checksum validation.
I've also created HADOOP-3495 to address supporting underscores in bucket names.
> Add support for reading regular (non-block-based) files from S3 in
> S3FileSystem
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-930
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-930
> Project: Hadoop Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: fs
> Affects Versions: 0.10.1
> Reporter: Tom White
> Assignee: Tom White
> Fix For: 0.18.0
>
> Attachments: hadoop-930-v2.patch, hadoop-930-v3.patch,
> hadoop-930-v4.patch, hadoop-930-v5.patch, hadoop-930.patch, jets3t-0.6.0.jar
>
>
> People often have input data on S3 that they want to use for a Map Reduce job
> and the current S3FileSystem implementation cannot read it since it assumes a
> block-based format.
> We would add the following metadata to files written by S3FileSystem: an
> indication that it is block oriented ("S3FileSystem.type=block") and a
> filesystem version number ("S3FileSystem.version=1.0"). Regular S3 files
> would not have the type metadata so S3FileSystem would not try to interpret
> them as inodes.
> An extension to write regular files to S3 would not be covered by this change
> - we could do this as a separate piece of work (we still need to decide
> whether to introduce another scheme - e.g. rename block-based S3 to "s3fs"
> and call regular S3 "s3" - or whether to just use a configuration property to
> control block-based vs. regular writes).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
