+1 On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Cristian Ivascu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > Cristian > > On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Cosmin Lehene wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Cosmin > > > > > > On 12/15/09 10:44 AM, "Lars George" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Lars > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>> +1 for 0.21.0 > >>> > >>> J-D > >>> > >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> +1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM, stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> HDFS-630 is kinda critical to us over in hbase. We'd like to get it > >>> into > >>>>> 0.21 (Its been committed to TRUNK). Its probably hard to argue its a > >>>>> blocker for 0.21. We could run a vote. Or should we just file it > >>> against > >>>>> 0.21.1 hdfs and commit it after 0.21 goes out? What would folks > >>> suggest? > >>>>> > >>>>> Without it, a node crash (datanode+regionserver) will bring down a > >>> second > >>>>> regionserver, particularly if the cluster is small (See HBASE-1876 > for > >>>>> description of the play-by-play where NN keeps giving out dead DN as > >>> place > >>>>> to locate new blocks). Since the bulk of hbase clusters are small -- > >>>>> whether evaluations, test, or just small productions -- this issue is > an > >>>>> important fix for us. If the cluster is of 5 or less nodes, we'll > >>> probably > >>>>> recover but there'll be a period of churn. At a minimum mapreduce > jobs > >>>>> running against the cluster will fail (usually some kind of bullk > >>> upload). > >>>>> > >>>>> St.Ack > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > -- Guilherme msn: [email protected] homepage: http://sites.google.com/site/germoglio/
