+1

On 18 Mar 2011, at 22:40, Utkarsh Srivastava wrote:

> +1
> 
> Utkarsh
> 
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Mahadev Konar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> +1.
>> 
>> thanks
>> mahadev
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> -0. I'm all for bk/hedwig moving out from contrib, but as I stated earlier
>>> I think it should move to incubator and not subproject. At the same time
>>> it's important that the project can develop on it's own, so I won't stand in
>>> the way.
>>> 
>>> Patrick
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1.
>>>> 
>>>> -Flavio
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1 i'm all for it of course :)
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Reed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Proposal
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> BookKeeper is a distributed write ahead logging (WAL) service. It is
>>>> 
>>>> built on top of ZooKeeper and is used for distributed recovery and
>>>> 
>>>> reliability. Much like ZooKeeper itself, BookKeeper is a distributed
>>>> 
>>>> tool used for reliability, but unlike ZooKeeper it is used to store
>>>> 
>>>> large amounts of application data in the form of byte streams, which
>>>> 
>>>> we call ledgers. It is made up of Bookies, which store data, and a
>>>> 
>>>> client library. All other meta-data is stored in ZooKeeper.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The BookKeeper subproject also includes Hedwig, which is a pub/sub
>>>> 
>>>> system built on both BookKeeper and ZooKeeper. It's coupling with
>>>> 
>>>> BookKeeper is tight and many of the performance features of BookKeeper
>>>> 
>>>> were added in response to Hedwig's requirements. Hedwig is made up of
>>>> 
>>>> a rather thin client library and stateless Brokers that cache and
>>>> 
>>>> distribute messages.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Background
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> BookKeeper was developed as a WAL for the Hadoop NameNode and was also
>>>> 
>>>> used to build the Hedwig pub/sub system. Both are currently contribs
>>>> 
>>>> to ZooKeeper. The work to get the hooks necessary to integrate
>>>> 
>>>> BookKeeper with the NameNode is almost complete (HDFS-1580).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Rational
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We have contributors that we would like to make committers to
>>>> 
>>>> BookKeeper and Hedwig. It would be nice to allow a development
>>>> 
>>>> community to grow around BookKeeper.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Also, hudson does not run against contrib. Making BookKeeper its own
>>>> 
>>>> subproject would allow us to better qa our changes.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We also would like to decouple BookKeeper releases from ZooKeeper
>>>> 
>>>> releases. ZooKeeper is quite mature and has relatively long release
>>>> 
>>>> cycles. We would like shorter release cycles for BookKeeper.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In theory we could make two projects BookKeeper and Hedwig, but doing
>>>> 
>>>> so would double the project management and release overhead. The
>>>> 
>>>> development community between BookKeeper and Hedwig overlaps heavily,
>>>> 
>>>> so we would be increasing the burden on the same group of
>>>> 
>>>> contributors.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Because of the developer community overlap with ZooKeeper and the fact
>>>> 
>>>> that BookKeeper is inline with the general mission of ZooKeeper, we
>>>> 
>>>> think BookKeeper should be a subproject of ZooKeeper.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Call for vote
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I propose that BookKeeper become a ZooKeeper subproject subject to
>>>> 
>>>> ZooKeeper PMC and Bylaws. I, Benjamin Reed, will champion the
>>>> 
>>>> proposal. BookKeeper will have the following initial committers:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dhruba Borthakur (Facebook)
>>>> 
>>>> Flavio Junqueira (Yahoo)
>>>> 
>>>> Ivan Kelly (Yahoo)
>>>> 
>>>> Benjamin Reed (Yahoo)
>>>> 
>>>> Utkarsh Srivastava (Twitter)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   *flavio*
>>>> *junqueira*
>>>> 
>>>> research scientist
>>>> 
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> direct +34 93-183-8828
>>>> 
>>>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
>>>> phone (408) 349 3300    fax (408) 349 3301
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to