Filed HDFS-4114. I think it's a regular code change like MR-2736. Thanks, Eli
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > It's been 10 days or so: Eli, do you want to file a JIRA to remove this > code? > > Do we need to call a vote of any kind, or is this treated as a code change > where the normal processes apply? > > -Todd > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Aaron T. Myers <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> I'm also in favor of removing them. I've fielded many questions from users >> about their status, how they compare to other daemons that exist, etc. All >> I've seen them do is increase confusion among users and be a maintenance >> burden on developers. >> >> -- >> Aaron T. Myers >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >> > Hey gang, >> > >> > Is anyone using the BackupNode and/or CheckpointNode? I'm not aware >> > of anyone using them, and the only outstanding related jira is >> > HDFS-2064, which has been open for over a year and doesn't seem to be >> > making progress. For the past three years the code has only been >> > maintained as part of other changes and test failures, which has >> > frankly been a bit of a development tax. Back in 2008 in HADOOP-4539 >> > the goal for the BackupNode was to eventually become a StandbyNode, it >> > doesn't look like anyone is working on that. Users get confused as to >> > whether to use the 2NN or the CheckpointNode, and what the point of >> > the BackupNode is since it's not provide HA or evolved. Unless someone >> > wants to push on their evolution and actively maintain them I don't >> > think it makes sense to keep them in the tree. Thoughts? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Eli >> > >> > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera
