[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16316786#comment-16316786
]
Aaron T. Myers commented on HDFS-12990:
---------------------------------------
Hey Nicholas,
bq. We should first discuss changing the current compatibility policy before
this JIRA since we have to change the policy before committing this.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what part of the existing compatibility policy
would we have to change? There's no question that this would be an incompatible
change, and I don't think any of us are suggesting that the policy should be
changed to consider a change like this to be compatible. Rather, I and others
believe that this is an incompatible change worth making from a pragmatic
perspective.
My understanding of our compatibility policy is that it aims to describe all of
what should be considered incompatible, but that we can still make incompatible
changes as long as we mark them as such, call them out with release notes, and
(like any change) no committer objects.
{quote}
It is not a good idea to discuss the policy here since many people will miss
the discussion by the summary of this JIRA.
I believe this won't be the only JIRA which likes to break the compatibility.
{quote}
Totally agree, but as described above I don't think we need to change the
policy in order to make this incompatible change.
Nicholas, to be totally explicit, are you opposed to making this change given
the circumstances? Or do you just think we need to discuss it further and more
broadly?
> Change default NameNode RPC port back to 8020
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-12990
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12990
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: namenode
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0
> Reporter: Xiao Chen
> Assignee: Xiao Chen
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: HDFS-12990.01.patch
>
>
> In HDFS-9427 (HDFS should not default to ephemeral ports), we changed all
> default ports to ephemeral ports, which is very appreciated by admin. As part
> of that change, we also modified the NN RPC port from the famous 8020 to
> 9820, to be closer to other ports changed there.
> With more integration going on, it appears that all the other ephemeral port
> changes are fine, but the NN RPC port change is painful for downstream on
> migrating to Hadoop 3. Some examples include:
> # Hive table locations pointing to hdfs://nn:port/dir
> # Downstream minicluster unit tests that assumed 8020
> # Oozie workflows / downstream scripts that used 8020
> This isn't a problem for HA URLs, since that does not include the port
> number. But considering the downstream impact, instead of requiring all of
> them change their stuff, it would be a way better experience to leave the NN
> port unchanged. This will benefit Hadoop 3 adoption and ease unnecessary
> upgrade burdens.
> It is of course incompatible, but giving 3.0.0 is just out, IMO it worths to
> switch the port back.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
