[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8647?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15032747#comment-15032747
]
Zhe Zhang commented on HDFS-8647:
---------------------------------
[~brahmareddy] [~mingma] [~walter.k.su] I wonder whether we should consider
pushing this to branch-2.7 and branch-2.6. Maybe after the currently planned
2.7.2 and 2.6.3 releases.
Doing so will enable the inclusion of bug fixes HDFS-9313 and HDFS-9314 in
2.6.x and 2.7.x.
I worked with [~xiaochen] offline along this direction. The main challenge is
from HDFS-8823, which should have been done in a feature branch but was
committed to branch-2 -- so I don't think we should push that one to
branch-2.6/2.7. If we reach an agreement here we can create a branch-2.6/2.7
patch for this JIRA.
Thanks.
> Abstract BlockManager's rack policy into BlockPlacementPolicy
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-8647
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8647
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ming Ma
> Assignee: Brahma Reddy Battula
> Fix For: 2.8.0
>
> Attachments: HDFS-8647-001.patch, HDFS-8647-002.patch,
> HDFS-8647-003.patch, HDFS-8647-004.patch, HDFS-8647-004.patch,
> HDFS-8647-005.patch, HDFS-8647-006.patch, HDFS-8647-007.patch,
> HDFS-8647-008.patch, HDFS-8647-009.patch
>
>
> Sometimes we want to have namenode use alternative block placement policy
> such as upgrade domains in HDFS-7541.
> BlockManager has built-in assumption about rack policy in functions such as
> useDelHint, blockHasEnoughRacks. That means when we have new block placement
> policy, we need to modify BlockManager to account for the new policy. Ideally
> BlockManager should ask BlockPlacementPolicy object instead. That will allow
> us to provide new BlockPlacementPolicy without changing BlockManager.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
