[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10999?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15876670#comment-15876670
]
Allen Wittenauer commented on HDFS-10999:
-----------------------------------------
bq. In this way, it would be easy to keep code consistency with branch-2.
It's been almost 1.5 years since branch-2.8.0 was cut. It's been almost 2
years since 2.7.0 was released. Why should the project make long term
compromises for short term gain? (In fact, I've been thinking more and more
about all of the changes to fsck that were protected with flags. We should
probably make most of those flags nops in 3.x before beta, given the
"continually not being released" state of branch-2.)
> Use more generic "low redundancy" blocks instead of "under replicated" blocks
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-10999
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10999
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: erasure-coding
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha1
> Reporter: Wei-Chiu Chuang
> Assignee: Manoj Govindassamy
> Labels: hdfs-ec-3.0-nice-to-have, supportability
>
> Per HDFS-9857, it seems in the Hadoop 3 world, people prefer the more generic
> term "low redundancy" to the old-fashioned "under replicated". But this term
> is still being used in messages in several places, such as web ui, dfsadmin
> and fsck. We should probably change them to avoid confusion.
> File this jira to discuss it.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
