Update: We worked on the review comments and additional JIRAs above mentioned.
>1. After the feedbacks from Andrew, Eddy, Xiao in JIRA reviews, we planned to take up the support for recursive API support. HDFS-12291<https://issues. apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12291> We provided the recursive API support now. >2. Xattr optimizations HDFS-12225<https://issues. apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12225> Improved this portion as well >3. Few other review comments already fixed and committed HDFS-12214< https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12214> Fixed the comments. We are continuing to test the feature and working so far well. Also we uploaded a combined patch and got the good QA report. If there are no further objections, we would like to go for merge vote tomorrow. Please by default this feature will be disabled. Regards, Uma On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Gangumalla, Uma <uma.ganguma...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > >Great to hear. It'd be nice to define which use cases are met by the > current version of SPS, and which will be handled after the merge. > After the discussions in JIRA, we planned to support recursive API as > well. The primary use cases we planned was for Hbase. Please check next > point for use case details. > > >A bit more detail in the design doc on how HBase would use this feature > would also be helpful. Is there an HBase JIRA already? > Please find the usecase details at this comment in JIRA: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10285? > focusedCommentId=16120227&page=com.atlassian.jira. > plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16120227 > > >I also spent some more time with the design doc and posted a few > questions on the JIRA. > Thank you for the reviews. > > To summarize the discussions in JIRA: > 1. After the feedbacks from Andrew, Eddy, Xiao in JIRA reviews, we planned > to take up the support for recursive API support. HDFS-12291< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12291> (Rakesh started the > work on it) > 2. Xattr optimizations HDFS-12225<https://issues. > apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12225> (Patch available) > 3. Few other review comments already fixed and committed HDFS-12214< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12214> > > For tracking the follow-up tasks we filed JIRA HDFS-12226, they should not > be critical for merge. > > Regards, > Uma > > From: Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com<mailto:andrew.wang@cloudera. > com>> > Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM > To: Uma Gangumalla <uma.ganguma...@intel.com<mailto:uma.gangumalla@intel. > com>> > Cc: "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>" < > hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org<mailto:hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Merge Storage Policy Satisfier (SPS) [HDFS-10285] > feature branch to trunk > > Hi Uma, > > > If there are still plans to make changes that affect compatibility (the > hybrid RPC and bulk DN work mentioned sound like they would), then we can > cut branch-3 first, or wait to merge until after these tasks are finished. > [Uma] We don’t see that 2 items as high priority for the feature. Users > would be able to use the feature with current code base and API. So, we > would consider them after branch-3 only. That should be perfectly fine IMO. > The current API is very much useful for Hbase scenario. In Hbase case, they > will rename files under to different policy directory. They will not set > the policies always. So, when rename files under to different policy > directory, they can simply call satisfyStoragePolicy, they don’t need any > hybrid API. > > Great to hear. It'd be nice to define which usecases are met by the > current version of SPS, and which will be handled after the merge. > > A bit more detail in the design doc on how HBase would use this feature > would also be helpful. Is there an HBase JIRA already? > > I also spent some more time with the design doc and posted a few questions > on the JIRA. > > Best, > Andrew >
