HDFS-909 left us with a corrupted HDFS Cosmin
On 1/28/10 4:14 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > So the list of HDFS issues for next 0.20.x or 0.21 most relevant to HBase > stability I have is: > > 127 > 200 (well, hflush) > 630 > 793 > > > Sound about right? Anything important I'm missing? > > - Andy > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> >> To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org >> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 9:14:01 AM >> Subject: Re: Rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 >> >> I don't think 101 is a real blocker - I haven't been able to reliably >> produce it. HDFS-793 fixes most of the issues I've seen in practice, and we >> now have a new patch in branch-20 which should fix that. >> >> 127 would be nice - there's a patch on that JIRA waiting for review as >> below. >> >> -Todd >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Stack wrote: >> >>> If the new release included (fixedup) hdfs-127 and hdfs-101, the hbase >>> crew would be big fans of an hadoop 0.20.2. >>> St.Ack >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >>>> HDFS-127 was originally committed, then rolled back from 0.20 as it >>> caused >>>> test timeouts due to infinite loop. I put a new patch up there but it has >>>> not been reviewed, and thus not committed. >>>> >>>> Owen: is there a particular rush for 0.20.2 or can we hold out for these >>>> patches? >>>> >>>> -Todd >>>> >>>> 2010/1/26 Kay Kay >>>> >>>>> Is HDFS-127 going to be part of it ? (seems to have been committed as >>> per >>>>> the jira). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 1/26/10 6:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:56AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm planning on rolling a Hadoop 0.20.2 today. Are there any blockers >>>>>>> that can't wait? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Owen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > > > >
