Hello, I too have been thinking about this for a pet project. There is already Apache Commons VFS that, with some investment, could probably serve all these requirements.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 3:16 PM Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > (Forking this thread, as it's a distinct topic) > > I've thought about it. The idea has driven me to try to reduce our use > of Hadoop-specific code, and to isolate Hadoop-specific stuff behind > some abstraction, wherever possible. Though, I'll admit, we're nowhere > close to where we'd want to be to be fully decoupled from Hadoop. > > I've also been looking a lot at our VolumeManager code lately, to try > to improve it a bit, and to create better abstractions for Volumes, > that could aid future work in this area. > > But, I haven't directly been working on new FileSystem API > abstraction... just trying to lay some groundwork for that possibility > in future. > > It'd be nice to get to a point where we have a Hadoop-specific > implementation isolated to a jar that can be swapped out at runtime > for other file system implementations, as needed. I see that as a > somewhat long-way off. > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:08 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I couldn't make the call today, but am curious if anyone has > previously brought up creating a FileSystem API for Accumulo so that we > could use implementations other than Hadoop. I realize that Hadoop provides > implementations for things other than HDFS but that doesn't necessarily > mean that all filesystem implementations are covered. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christopher <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 1:45 PM > > To: accumulo-dev <[email protected]> > > Subject: Slack call notes > > > > Several committers/contributors in the community joined a call in Slack > on Wednesday, at 1130-1230, New York (Eastern) time. Here are my notes of > the call. Please feel free to add to them. > > > > I shared the overall philosophy and backstory to some of the script > improvements in 2.x to help guide current/future work on the scripts. > > > > * bin/accumulo is inspired by old jpackage.org standards which are > still in use in RPM macros for Java packaging in Fedora/RHEL/etc. The key > idea is that scripts are simple... set up environment (class path, etc.), > locate java, and exec a single process with the provided args. > > * bin/accumulo-service is inspired by old SysVInit scripts for > start/stop/restart/status of a single service > > * behavior of bin/accumulo and bin/accumulo-service can be manipulated > through launch environment > > * bin/accumulo-cluster uses bin/accumulo-service, and is provided as a > simple, out-of-the-box cluster management tool > > * bin/accumulo-cluster and bin/accumulo-service are replaceable; they > are useful for out-of-the-box, but one would expect them to be unnecessary > if using systemd, or a vendor-provided cluster management system > > * we discussed possibly moving bin/accumulo-cluster and > bin/accumulo-service to contrib/ in the tarball, or some subdir of bin/, > but it was suggested to not make too many disruptive changes there > > * we discussed the possibility of adding a config file for > bin/accumulo-cluster (also mentioned on > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/1568) > > * we discussed the need to document the intent/purpose/scope of the > scripts in comments inside the scripts themselves > > * Ed Coleman asked if it'd be good to document a systemd example; I > suggested it might make for a good blog post (perhaps by the person who > wrote the systemd unit files for Fluo Muchos) > > > > Keith Turner discussed his development efforts with regard to enabling > more controls over compactions. > > > > * one main idea was to keep configuration/API for data separate from > that for execution > > * data is concerns to application owners, whereas execution involves > system admins (resource contention, etc.) > > * he will submit a PR for review when ready > > * he also suggested another call to go over the PR > > > > Billie Rinaldi discussed better support for Azure Data Lake Storage > > Gen2 (ADLSv2). > > > > * maintaining a fork for experimenting, and working on reliably testing > issues involving WALs > > * did not recommend using ADLSv2 with WALs, but that we should still > support it > > * might need to implement a custom log closer to better support it > > > > Mike Miller brought up the idea of eliminating more static internal > state. > > > > * ServerConfigurationFactory might be improved in this regard, with some > additional ZK cleanup > > * Other ZK cleanup might help elsewhere (such as ZooCache) > > * I suggested tablet location cache might also benefit from being bound > to an AccumuloClient lifecycle (or a dedicated opaque object that could be > shared across AccumuloClient instances with its own user-managed lifecycle) > > > > Please add anything I might have missed (or got wrong) in response to > this post. > > >
