Hi How to insert and update datin hadoop? Could you please explain me... Thanks Prabakara Krishnan
________________________________ From: Aaron T. Myers <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:37 AM Subject: Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release Great, that makes sense to me as well. Thanks a lot, and have a happy holidays. Aaron On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> wrote: > As Sid responded I think we can move off alpha once we fix > YARN-142/MAPREDUCE-4067. There are other apis we should clean up, but none > as egregious as those two. > > Someone on my team is starting on it as we speak and I believe we can get > it done sometime in Jan... thus targetting 2.0.4 (as a beta?). By then > we'll also have wider rollouts of YARN and would have fixed some more > issues we've seen at very high scale deployments at Y!. Sounds like the > right time to do a beta release to me. > > Arun > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > > > Hey Arun, > > > > Awesome to see we're almost down to zero blockers. What are your thoughts > > on removing the "alpha" label from the upcoming release? It seems to me > > from the earlier discussion that most folks feel that we're at the point > > where the interfaces are sufficiently stable to warrant it. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Nearly there: > >> http://s.apache.org/hadoop-2-blockers > >> > >> YARN-217 should be easy, I'd also like to get in YARN-253. > >> > >> Arun > >> > >> On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:15 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > >> > >>> Any news on how this is progressing? Some folks in this thread below > >>> inquired about getting this release out around the New Year timeframe, > >>> but it looks like YARN-117 subtasks have gone pretty quiet. We all > >>> know how long lifecycle changes can take to get pushed through ;-) > >>> > >>> -Todd > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Steve Loughran > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> I want to make some changes to the lifecycle of a yarn service (in a > >>>> backwards compatible way). > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-117 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 1. formal state machine model with stop state idempotent and > >> entry-able > >>>> from any state > >>>> 2. waiting/blocked state a service can enter when waiting for > >> something > >>>> else > >>>> 3. an alternate base class that does the state model checks before > >>>> executing any state change functions -currently its done at > >>>> end-of-operation in the super() calls. > >>>> 4. gradual move of services to the stricter base class. > >>>> > >>>> With a new base class nothing will break (as the move can be done > >>>> case-by-case, leaving the heavily subclassed ones alone); the state > >> model > >>>> extensions & formalisation would be visible but not used. > >>>> > >>>> I don't want to hold anything up, because I need more testing of > things > >>>> before this is ready for review. I just want to get the fixes in > before > >> it > >>>> ships > >>>> > >>>> On 19 November 2012 16:22, Robert Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I am OK with removing the alpha assuming that we think that the APIs > >> are > >>>>> stable enough that we are willing to truly start maintaining > backwards > >>>>> compatibility on them within 2.X. From what I have seen I think that > >> they > >>>>> are fairly stable and I think there is enough adoption by other > >> projects > >>>>> right now that breaking backwards compatibility would be problematic. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Bobby Evans > >>>>> > >>>>> On 11/16/12 11:34 PM, "Stack" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Arun, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing > >>>>>>> stability > >>>>>>> of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides > a > >>>>>>> complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing > the > >>>>>>> "-alpha" label from the release version. My preference would be to > >>>>>>> remove > >>>>>>> the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it "-beta" or > >>>>>>> something. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think it fine after two minor releases undoing the '-alpha' > suffix. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If folks insist we next go to '-beta', I'd hope we'd travel all > >>>>>> remaining 22 letters of the greek alphabet before we 2.0.x. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> St.Ack > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Todd Lipcon > >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> > >> -- > >> Arun C. Murthy > >> Hortonworks Inc. > >> http://hortonworks.com/ > >> > >> > >> > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > >
