Perhaps, there should not be the "space" between -D and your option ?

-Dprise.collopts=....

Vasyl



2009/6/4 Ian Soboroff <ian.sobor...@nist.gov>:
>
> bin/hadoop jar -files collopts -D prise.collopts=collopts p3l-3.5.jar 
> gov.nist.nlpir.prise.mapred.MapReduceIndexer input output
>
> The 'prise.collopts' option doesn't appear in the JobConf.
>
> Ian
>
> Aaron Kimball <aa...@cloudera.com> writes:
>
>> Can you give an example of the exact arguments you're sending on the command
>> line?
>> - Aaron
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Ian Soboroff <ian.sobor...@nist.gov> wrote:
>>
>>     If after I call getConf to get the conf object, I manually add the key/
>>     value pair, it's there when I need it.  So it feels like ToolRunner isn't
>>     parsing my args for some reason.
>>
>>     Ian
>>
>>     On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Ian Soboroff wrote:
>>
>>         Yes, and I get the JobConf via 'JobConf job = new JobConf(conf,
>>         the.class)'.  The conf is the Configuration object that comes from
>>         getConf.  Pretty much copied from the WordCount example (which this
>>         program used to be a long while back...)
>>
>>         thanks,
>>         Ian
>>
>>         On Jun 3, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Aaron Kimball wrote:
>>
>>             Are you running your program via ToolRunner.run()? How do you
>>             instantiate the JobConf object?
>>             - Aaron
>>
>>             On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Ian Soboroff <
>>             ian.sobor...@nist.gov> wrote:
>>             I'm backporting some code I wrote for 0.19.1 to 0.18.3 (long
>>             story), and I'm finding that when I run a job and try to pass
>>             options with -D on the command line, that the option values 
>> aren't
>>             showing up in my JobConf.  I logged all the key/value pairs in 
>> the
>>             JobConf, and the option I passed through with -D isn't there.
>>
>>             This worked in 0.19.1... did something change with command-line
>>             options from 18 to 19?
>>
>>             Thanks,
>>             Ian
>

Reply via email to