[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-574?page=comments#action_12453742 ] Doug Cutting commented on HADOOP-574: -------------------------------------
> DFSShell is really more general than DFS - perhaps it should be renamed > FSShell? Yes, it probably should, since it is largely generic. > I need to see how the S3 implementation fits with HADOOP-571. Suggestions > welcome. What should the URI look like? The scheme should be "s3", that's easy, but what about the authority? I think it makes sense to map bucket to host, access key id to user and secret access key to password. So that would give URIs like s3://id:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/. One's hadoop-site.xml could then just specify the fs.default.name using this syntax. Other than that, all you should need to do is define a few new FileSystem methods (getUri(), initialize(URI, Configuration)) and a new configuration property (fs.s3.impl). > want FileSystem implementation for Amazon S3 > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: HADOOP-574 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-574 > Project: Hadoop > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: fs > Affects Versions: 0.9.0 > Reporter: Doug Cutting > Attachments: dependencies.zip, HADOOP-574-v2.patch, HADOOP-574.patch > > > An S3-based Hadoop FileSystem would make a great addition to Hadoop. > It would facillitate use of Hadoop on Amazon's EC2 computing grid, as > discussed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org/msg00318.html > This is related to HADOOP-571, which would make Hadoop's FileSystem > considerably easier to extend. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
