+1 Thanks, Rakesh
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Uma Maheswara Rao G <hadoop....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > > > From the positive responses from JIRA discussion and no objections from > below DISCUSS thread [1], I am converting it to voting thread. > > > > Last couple of weeks we spent time on testing the feature and so far it is > working fine. Surendra uploaded a test report at HDFS-10285: [2] > > > > In this phase, we provide to run SPS outside of Namenode only and as a > next phase we continue to discuss and work on to enable it as Internal SPS > as explained below. We have got clean QA report on branch and if there are > any static tool comments triggered later while running this thread, we will > make sure to fix them before merge. We committed and continue to improve > the code on trunk. Please refer to HDFS-10285 for discussion details. > > > > This has been a long effort and we're grateful for the support we've > received from the community. In particular, thanks to Andrew Wang, Anoop > Sam John, Anu Engineer, Chris Douglas, Daryn Sharp, Du Jingcheng , Ewan > Higgs, Jing Zhao, Kai Zheng, Rakesh R, Ramkrishna , Surendra Singh Lilhore > , Thomas Demoor, Uma Maheswara Rao G, Vinayakumar, Virajith, Wei Zhou, > Yuanbo Liu. Without these members effort, this feature might not have > reached to this state. > > > > To start with, here is my +1 > > It will end on 6th Aug. > > > > Regards, > > Uma > > [1] https://s.apache.org/bhyu > [2] https://s.apache.org/AXvL > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Uma Maheswara Rao G <hadoop....@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > After long discussions(offline and on JIRA) on SPS, we came to a > > conclusion on JIRA(HDFS-10285) that, we will go ahead with External SPS > > merge in first phase. In this phase process will not be running inside > > Namenode. > > We will continue discussion on Internal SPS. Current code base supports > > both internal and external option. We have review comments for Internal > > which needs some additional works for analysis and testing etc. We will > > move Internal SPS work to under HDFS-12226 (Follow-on work for SPS in NN) > > We are working on cleanup task HDFS-13076 for the merge. . > > For more clarity on Internal and External SPS proposal thoughts, please > > refer to JIRA HDFS-10285. > > > > If there are no objections with this, I will go ahead for voting soon. > > > > Regards, > > Uma > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Uma Maheswara Rao G < > hadoop....@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > >> 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.apac > >> he.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?focusedComm > >>> entId=16120227&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issueta > >>> bpanels: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.apac > >>> he.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.w...@cloudera.com>> > >>> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM > >>> To: Uma Gangumalla <uma.ganguma...@intel.com<mailto: > >>> uma.ganguma...@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 > >>> > >> > >> > > >
