Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

, Ramya Sunil, Bikas Saha, Kanna Karanam, John Gordon, Brandon Li, Chris Nauroth, David Lao, Sumadhur Reddy Bolli, Arpit Agarwal, Ahmed El Baz, Mike Liddell, Jing Zhao, Thejas Nair, Steve Maine, Ganeshan Iyer, Raja Aluri, Giridharan Kesavan, Ramya Bharathi Nimmagadda, Daryn Sharp, Arun Murthy, Tsz-Wo

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Suresh Srinivas sur...@hortonworks.com wrote: Thanks for starting this discussion. I volunteer to do a final review of protocol changes, so we can avoid incompatible changes to API and wire protocol post 2.0.5 in Common and HDFS. We have been working really

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.2.0

+1 (non-binding) - Verified md5/SHA checksums - Installed binary distribution on Centos 6.4 - Ran a few MapReduce jobs on a single-node cluster - Copied files to/from the cluster using HDFS commands No issues encountered. On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com

[VOTE] Merge HDFS-2832 Heterogeneous Storage Phase 1 to trunk

Hello all, I would like to call a vote to merge phase 1 of the Heterogeneous Storage feature into trunk. *Scope of the changes:* The changes allow exposing the DataNode as a collection of storages and set the foundation for subsequent work to present Heterogeneous Storages to applications. This

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-2832 Heterogeneous Storage Phase 1 to trunk

team has been developing and testing against the HDFS-2832 branch for the past month. It has proven to be quite stable. Eric -Original Message- From: Arpit Agarwal [mailto:aagar...@hortonworks.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 7:07 PM To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-2832 Heterogeneous Storage Phase 1 to trunk

...@cloudera.comwrote: Thanks for clarifying that Arpit. I'm a +0.9 since I haven't reviewed enough to +1, but everything thus far looks great. Andrew On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Chen He airb...@gmail.com wrote: +1 nice feature for HDFS On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Arpit Agarwal

Re: Intermittent test errors in Hadoop-hdfs project

It looks like HDFS-5636 missed updating editsStored. On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote: TestOfflineEditsViewer is the one appearing in Jenkins builds. I ran the other tests locally on Mac and they passed. Cheers On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Abhijeet

Re: Intermittent test errors in Hadoop-hdfs project

, Failures: 2, Errors: 2, Skipped: 49 Thanks, Abhijeet. -Original Message- From: Arpit Agarwal [mailto:aagar...@hortonworks.com] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 1:09 AM To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; Andrew Wang Subject: Re: Intermittent test errors in Hadoop-hdfs project It looks like

Re: Next releases

We plan to merge HDFS-2832 to branch-2 next week for inclusion in 2.4. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: Thanks Suresh Colin. Please update the Roadmap wiki with your proposals. As always, we will try our best to get these in - but we can

Re: Next releases

This merge to branch-2 is complete. The changes have been merged to branch-2 and target version set to 2.4.0 (r1556076). On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.comwrote: We plan to merge HDFS-2832 to branch-2 next week for inclusion in 2.4. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013

Re: Re-swizzle 2.3

IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur t...@cloudera.comwrote: IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a very odd ways (to the point it

Re: Re-swizzle 2.3

Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.comwrote: IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-4685 HDFS ACLs to trunk

Minder, Chris Nauroth, Sanjay Radia, Suresh Srinivas, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), SZE and Jing Zhao. Code reviewers on individual patches include Arpit Agarwal, Colin Patrick McCabe, Haohui Mai, Chris Nauroth and Jing Zhao. This vote runs for a week and closes on 2/17/2014 at 11:59 pm PT. Chris

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-5535 Rolling Upgrade Improvement

on it.) - Execute the manual tests (Haohui and Fengdong will work on it.) The work was a collective effort of Nathan Roberts, Sanjay Radia, Suresh Srinivas, Kihwal Lee, Jing Zhao, Arpit Agarwal, Brandon Li, Haohui Mai, Vinayakumar B, Fengdong Yu, Chris Nauroth and Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze, who have proposed

Re: [VOTE] Change by-laws on release votes: 5 days instead of 7

+1 Arpit On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: Folks, As discussed, I'd like to call a vote on changing our by-laws to change release votes from 7 days to 5. I've attached the change to by-laws I'm proposing. Please vote, the vote will the usual

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from svn to git for source control?

+1 to voting on specific workflow(s). On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: If we are to start a vote thread, will people prefer a vote thread that includes potential workflows as well? On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from svn to git for source control?

Abdelnur tuc...@gmail.com wrote: I would say we can first move to git and keep the very same workflow we have today, then we can evolve it. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: +1 to voting on specific workflow(s). On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Re: [VOTE] Migration from subversion to git for version control

+1 binding. On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Thomas Graves tgra...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid wrote: +1 (binding). Tom On Friday, August 8, 2014 9:57 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: I have put together this proposal based on recent discussion on this topic. Please vote

[DISCUSS] Switch to log4j 2

I don't recall whether this was discussed before. I often find our INFO logging to be too sparse for useful diagnosis. A high performance logging framework will encourage us to log more. Specifically, Asynchronous Loggers look interesting.

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to log4j 2

The block state change logs are indeed too noisy at INFO and I've not found them useful when troubleshooting. Just filed HDFS-6860 to fix that. This is orthogal to SLF4J migration however moving to SLF4J would help ease the transition to Log4j 2. Thanks for the pointer to HDFS-5421 Aaron,

Re: Updates on migration to git

I cloned the new repo, built trunk and branch-2, verified all the branches are present. Also checked a few branches and the recent commit history matches our existing repo. Everything looks good so far. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: The git

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6584 Archival Storage to trunk

of the remaining work before merging the branch to trunk. The contributors of this work include Jing Zhao, Arpit Agarwal, Vinayakumar B, Suresh Srinivas, Sanjay Radia, Jitendra Pandey, Haohui Mai and Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze. We thank the community for giving valuable comments

[VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

HDFS Devs, We propose merging the HDFS-6581 development branch to trunk. The work adds support to write to HDFS blocks in memory. The target use case covers applications writing relatively small, intermediate data sets with low latency. We introduce a new CreateFlag for the existing CreateFile

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

, Andrew On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jitendra Pandey jiten...@hortonworks.com wrote: +1. I have reviewed most of the code in the branch, and I think its ready to be merged to trunk. On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: HDFS

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: Andrew, don't misquote me. Can you link the comment where I said performance wasn't going to be good? I will add some add some preliminary write results to the Jira later today. What's the plan to improve

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

I have posted write benchmark results to the Jira. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: Hi Andrew, I said it is not going to be a substantial fraction of memory bandwidth. That is certainly not the same as saying it won't be good or there won't be any

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

. I mentioned this a few times on the JIRA. I'd also like to get some idea of how much testing this has received in a multi-node cluster. What makes us confident that this is the right time to merge, rather than in a week or two? best, Colin On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Arpit Agarwal

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: I have posted write benchmark results to the Jira. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: Hi Andrew, I said it is not going to be a substantial

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

I implemented a modified 2Q today on HDFS-7142... I'd appreciate a review. Great, thank you. I'll review it later today. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Colin McCabe cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: I would

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

Andrew, I think you are reading hostility or lack of warmth where it wasn't intended. I apologize if it came through in my responses to you. Please consider that it could be due to the limitations of communicating over email. Your technical feedback is always welcome and I thank you for it again,

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

recall when we discussed HDFS-5851 the community feedback was to avoid SCW due to open questions (truncation, violating append-only semantics) and stick with DTP for the first cut. Perhaps we can revisit SCW if there is renewed interest. Arpit On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-6581 to trunk - Writing to replicas in memory.

The HDFS-6581 branch has been merged into trunk. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Arpit Agarwal aagar...@hortonworks.com wrote: HDFS Devs, The vote passes with 4 +1s (Jitendra, Jing, Suresh and mine), two -0s and no binding vetoes. The branch will be merged to trunk by tomorrow. Thank you

Re: Erratic Jenkins behavior

Sorry I don¹t have much insight into this either. Our Jenkins setup is a bit of a black box to me. Too few of us have access to the build hosts and it makes debugging difficult. Perhaps we should grant access to all committers. On 2/9/15, 11:29 AM, Colin P. McCabe cmcc...@apache.org wrote: I'm

Re: Planning Hadoop 2.6.1 release

HDFS candidates for back-porting to Hadoop 2.6.1. The first two were requested in [1]. HADOOP-11674. oneByteBuf in CryptoInputStream and CryptoOutputStream should be non static HADOOP-11710. Make CryptoOutputStream behave like DFSOutputStream wrt synchronization HDFS-7009. Active NN and

Re: A 2.7.1 release to follow up 2.7.0

+1 for 2.7.1 and +1 for promoting it to 'stable', assuming it includes no new features or gratuitous improvements. Arpit On 4/9/15, 11:48 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli vino...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, I feel like we haven't done a great job of maintaining the previous 2.x releases. Seeing

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.1 RC0

Vinod, thanks for putting together this release. +1 (binding) - Verified signatures - Installed binary release on Centos 6 pseudo cluster * Copied files in and out of HDFS using the shell * Mounted HDFS via NFS and copied a 10GB file in and out over NFS * Ran example MapReduce

Re: Questions on HDFS-8880

only in this one off sounds >absolutely terrible. > >On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> There is no property called hadoop.metrics.log.file. Where do you see it? >> And there is no property that would show up in the com

Re: Questions on HDFS-8880

There is no property called hadoop.metrics.log.file. Where do you see it? And there is no property that would show up in the command-line of every process. namenode.metrics.logger would show up in the NN command-line and even that is off by default. FileSink looks limited for practical use. -

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.3 RC0

+1 (binding) - Verified signatures for source and binary distributions - Built jars from source with java 1.7.0_79 - Deployed single-node pseudo-cluster - Ran example map reduce jobs - Ran hdfs admin commands, verified NN web UI shows expected usages On 12/11/15, 4:16 PM, "Junping Du"

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC1

Thanks for putting together this release Vinod. +1 (binding) - Verified signatures - Started pseudo-cluster with binary distribution, verified git commit ID - Built sources, deployed pseudo-cluster and ran example map reduce jobs, DistributedShell, HDFS commands. PS: Extra file

Re: [VOTE] HDFS-1312 - Diskbalancer branch merge

. Disk Balancer is made possible due to the work of many community members including Arpit Agarwal, Vinayakumar B, Mingliang Liu, Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze, Lei (Eddy) Xu and Xiaobing Zhou. I would like to thank them all for the effort and support. Thanks Anu

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC2

+1 (binding) - verified signatures - Installed pseudo-cluster from binary distribution and ran example MapReduce jobs - Built from sources and reran tests on pseudo-cluster On 1/14/16, 8:57 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" wrote: >Hi all, > >I've created an updated release

'Target Version' field missing in Jira

Is it just me or has the Target Version/s field gone missing from Apache Hadoop Jira? I don't recall any recent discussion about it.

Re: Apply for "assign to me" permission.

Done. Thanks for your interest in contributing to Hadoop. On 7/27/16, 6:47 PM, "hufh" wrote: Hi guys, I have opened a JIRA(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10690) and want to fix it, but i can't assign it to myself, anyone can give me a hand?

Re: [VOTE] Release cadence and EOL

The ASF release policy says releases may not be vetoed [1] so the EOL policy sounds unenforceable. Not sure a release cadence is enforceable either since Release Managers are volunteers. 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release On 1/18/17, 7:06 PM, "Junping Du"

Re: Why do sequential block IDs begin from 2^30?

Hi Ewan, It’s not the low 30 bits that are reserved. Just the first 2^30 block IDs. Block IDs are longs so we are unlikely to ever run out. The choice was arbitrary and not based on likelihood of collision with earlier block IDs. On 8/25/16, 2:38 AM, "Ewan Higgs"

Re: did someone break branch-2?

Yep that would be me. Pushed a commit to revert it for now. On 11/8/16, 6:00 AM, "Steve Loughran" wrote: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HADOOP-Build/11019/artifact/patchprocess/patch-compile-root-jdk1.8.0_101.txt [ERROR]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 GA is released

Hi Andrew, Thank you for all the hard work on this release. I was out the last few days and didn’t get a chance to evaluate RC1 earlier. The changelog looks incorrect. E.g. This gives an impression that there are just 5 incompatible changes in 3.0.0.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 GA is released

:36 AM To: Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com> Cc: general <gene...@hadoop.apache.org>, "common-...@hadoop.apache.org" <common-...@hadoop.apache.org>, "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>, "mapreduce-...@hadoop.ap

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

Hi Andrew, Thank you for your hard work in getting us to this step. This is our first major GA release in many years. I feel a 5-day vote window ending over the weekend before thanksgiving may not provide sufficient time to evaluate this RC especially for downstream components. Would you

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

of voting? Best, Andrew On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for your hard work in getting us to this step. This is our first > major GA release in many years.

Re: [DISCUSS]Merge ContainerIO branch (HDDS-48) in to trunk

will clean up the unused classes, fix old integration tests and continue testing the changes. Thanks to Hanisha Koneru, Arpit Agarwal, Anu Engineer, Jitendra Pandey, Xiaoyu Yao, Ajay Kumar, Mukul Kumar Singh, Marton Elek and Shashikant Banerjee for their contributions in design, d

Re: HADOOP-15124 review

Hi Igor, it is perfectly fine to request a code review on the dev mailing list. From: Igor Dvorzhak Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:27 PM To: Cc: , Subject: Re: HADOOP-15124 review Hi Yiqun, Thank you for the explanation. I didn't know that this is not appropriate and will not do so in

Re: Use HAAdmin API

Mihir, HAAdmin is a private interface. Most of its functionality is exposed via the ‘hdfs haadmin’ command [1]. Will that work for you? 1. https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.7.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-hdfs/HDFSCommands.html#haadmin On 10/17/17, 4:28 AM, "Mihir Monani"

Re: Apache Hadoop 3.0.1 Release plan

Hi Aaron/Lei, Do you plan to roll an RC with an uncommitted fix? That isn't the right approach. This issue has good visibility and enough discussion. If there is a binding veto in effect then the change must be abandoned. Else you should be able to proceed with committing. However, 3.0.0 must

Re: HADOOP-14163 proposal for new hadoop.apache.org

+1 Thanks for initiating this Marton. On 8/31/18, 1:07 AM, "Elek, Marton" wrote: Bumping this thread at last time. I have the following proposal: 1. I will request a new git repository hadoop-site.git and import the new site to there (which has exactly the same

Re: HADOOP-14163 proposal for new hadoop.apache.org

Requested a new git repo for the site: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop-site.git On 9/4/18, 1:33 PM, "Mingliang Liu" wrote: It might be late but I'm +1 on the new site and transition proposal. Thanks Marton. On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:07 AM Elek, Marton wrote:

Re: [VOTE] reset/force push to clean up inadvertent merge commit pushed to trunk

Things are good. > > I can push this now which will restore trunk to its original. > I can do this if there are no objection. > > - Sunil > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:10 AM Arpit Agarwal > wrote: > > afaict YARN-8435 is s

Re: [VOTE] reset/force push to clean up inadvertent merge commit pushed to trunk

-1 for the force push. Nothing is broken in trunk. The history looks ugly for two commits and we can live with it. The revert restored the branch to Giovanni's intent. i.e. only YARN-8435 is applied. Verified there is no delta between hashes 0d9804d and 39ad989 (HEAD). 39ad989 2018-07-05

Re: [VOTE] reset/force push to clean up inadvertent merge commit pushed to trunk

afaict YARN-8435 is still in trunk. YARN-7556 and YARN-7451 are not. From: Giovanni Matteo Fumarola Date: Friday, July 6, 2018 at 10:59 AM To: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli Cc: Anu Engineer , Arpit Agarwal , "su...@apache.org" , "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" , "h

Re: [VOTE] reset/force push to clean up inadvertent merge commit pushed to trunk

s original. I can do this if there are no objection. - Sunil On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:10 AM Arpit Agarwal wrote: > afaict YARN-8435 is still in trunk. YARN-7556 and YARN-7451 are not. > > > From: Giovanni Matteo Fumarola > Date: F

Re: [VOTE] Merge ContainerIO branch (HDDS-48) in to trunk

Late +1 for the merge. Thanks for driving this improvement Hanisha and Bharat. On 6/29/18, 3:10 PM, "Bharat Viswanadham" wrote: Hi All, Given the positive response to the discussion thread [1], here is the formal vote thread to merge HDDS-48 in to trunk. Summary of

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDDS (HDFS-7240) *code* into trunk

+1 (binding) On 4/16/18, 4:49 PM, "Jitendra Pandey" wrote: Hi All, The community unanimously voted (https://s.apache.org/HDDSMergeResult) to adopt HDDS/Ozone as a sub-project of Hadoop, here is the formal vote for code merge. Here is a

Re: Read or Save specific blocks of a file

Hi, Perhaps I missed something in the question. FileSystem#getFileBlockLocations followed by open, seek to start of target block, read. This will let you read the contents of a specific block using public APIs. On 4/23/18, 5:26 PM, "Daniel Templeton" wrote: I'm

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.1.0 (RC1)

Thanks for putting together this RC, Wangda. The guidance from Apache is to omit MD5s, specifically: > SHOULD NOT supply a MD5 checksum file (because MD5 is too broken). https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums On Apr 2, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Wangda Tan

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.1 (RC1)

Hi Lei, It looks like the release artefacts have dummy shaded jars. E.g. Repository Path: /org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-client-runtime/3.0.1/hadoop-client-runtime-3.0.1.jar Uploaded by: lei Size: 44.47 KB Uploaded Date:Fri Mar 16 2018 15:50:42 GMT-0700 (PDT) Last Modified:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.1.0 (RC1)

com> Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:25 PM To: Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com> Cc: Gera Shegalov <ger...@gmail.com>, Sunil G <sun...@apache.org>, "yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>, Hdfs-dev <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>

Re: About reset branch-3.1 to trunk before release.

Thanks Wangda. On 3/19/18, 11:38 AM, "Wangda Tan" wrote: Done JIRA fix version update: Moved all JIRAs with fixVersion = 3.2.0 to 3.1.0 except following few fixes (which committed after 49c747ab187d0650143205ba57ca19607ec4c6bd) YARN-8002.

Re: [VOTE] Adopt HDSL as a new Hadoop subproject

+1 (binding) Arpit On 3/20/18, 11:21 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote: All, Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240 to trunk), I'd like to propose the following: * HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop. * HDSL will

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.3.0-alpha (RC1)

+1 binding. - Verified signatures - Verified checksums - Checked LICENSE/NOTICE files - Built from source - Deployed to three node cluster and ran smoke tests. Thanks Marton for putting up the RC. On 2018/11/14, 9:14 AM, "Elek, Marton" wrote: Hi all, I've created the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.2.1-alpha (RC0)

Thanks for putting together this release Marton. +1 (binding) - Verified signatures and checksums - LICENSE and NOTICE files exist in source and binary tarballs - Built from source code - Deployed to three node cluster - Tried out Ozone shell commands via 'ozone sh' - Tried out

Re: [VOTE] - HDDS-4 Branch merge

+1 It's great to see Ozone security being merged. On 2019/01/11, 7:40 AM, "Anu Engineer" wrote: Since I have not heard any concerns, I will start a VOTE thread now. This vote will run for 7 days and will end on Jan/18/2019 @ 8:00 AM PST. I will start with my vote, +1

Re: [DISCUSS] Docker build process

Hi Eric, > Dockerfile is most likely to change to apply the security fix. I am not sure this is always. Marton’s point about revising docker images independent of Hadoop versions is valid. > When maven release is automated through Jenkins, this is a breeze > of clicking a button. Jenkins

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.1.2 - RC1

+1 binding for updated source package. - Rechecked signatures and checksums - Source matches release git tag - Built from source > On Feb 5, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Sunil G wrote: > > Thanks Billie for pointing out. > I have updated source by removing patchprocess and extra line create >

Re: proposed new repository for hadoop/ozone docker images (+update on docker works)

I’ve requested a new repo hadoop-docker-ozone.git in gitbox. > On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:59 AM, Elek, Marton wrote: > > > > TLDR; > > I proposed to create a separated git repository for ozone docker images > in HDDS-851 (hadoop-docker-ozone.git) > > If there is no objections in the next 3 days

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.1.2 - RC1

+1 (binding) - Verified signatures - Verified checksums - Built from source - Verified Maven artifacts on staging repo - Deployed 3 node cluster - Tried out HDFS commands, MapReduce jobs. Confirmed the issues Billie pointed out. Not sure if you need to spin up a new RC or you can update the

Re: [DISCUSS] Merge HDFS-13891(RBF) to trunk

I scanned the merge payload for changes to non-RBF code. The changes are minimal, which is good. The only commit that I didn’t understand was: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14268 The jira description doesn’t make it clear why

Re: [DISCUSS] Merge HDFS-13891(RBF) to trunk

Utility method which is moved to > hadoop-hdfs-client module. Ideally it could have been seperate jira. But this > changes will not induce any issues, will take necessary action for this. > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 8:40 PM Arpit Agarwal <mailto:aagar...@cloudera.com>> wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Unprotect HDFS-13891 (HDFS RBF Branch)

The request is specific to HDFS-13891, correct? We should not allow force push on trunk. > On May 14, 2019, at 8:07 AM, Anu Engineer > wrote: > > Is it possible to unprotect the branches and not the trunk? Generally, a > force push to trunk indicates a mistake and we have had that in the

Re: VOTE: Hadoop Ozone 0.4.0-alpha RC2

Thanks for building this RC Ajay. +1 binding. - verified signatures and checksums - built from source - deployed to 3 node cluster, tried out basic operations - ran smoke tests - ran unit tests - LICENSE/NOTICE files look ok There is an extra file in the source root named JenkinsFile. > On

Re: VOTE: Hadoop Ozone 0.4.0-alpha RC1

Thanks Ajay for putting together this RC. Unfortunately HDDS-1425 looks like a blocker. We should make the docker experience smooth for anyone trying out 0.4.0. I’ve just committed Marton’s patch for HDDS-1425 this morning. Let’s roll a new

Re: [VOTE] Move Submarine source code, documentation, etc. to a separate Apache Git repo

+1 > On Aug 23, 2019, at 7:05 PM, Wangda Tan wrote: > > Hi devs, > > This is a voting thread to move Submarine source code, documentation from > Hadoop repo to a separate Apache Git repo. Which is based on discussions of >

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate Hadoop Core trunk and Hadoop Ozone trunk source tree

+1 > On Sep 17, 2019, at 2:49 AM, Elek, Marton wrote: > > > > TLDR; I propose to move Ozone related code out from Hadoop trunk and store it > in a separated *Hadoop* git repository apache/hadoop-ozone.git > > > > > When Ozone was adopted as a new Hadoop subproject it was proposed[1] to

Re: [VOTE] create ozone-dev and ozone-issues mailing lists

+1 > On Oct 27, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Elek, Marton wrote: > > > As discussed earlier in the thread of "Hadoop-Ozone repository mailing list > configurations" [1] I suggested to solve the current misconfiguration problem > with creating separated mailing lists (dev/issues) for Hadoop Ozone. > >

Re: [VOTE] create ozone-dev and ozone-issues mailing lists

s://hadoop.apache.org/mailing_lists.html > > -Ayush > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 16:19, Elek, Marton wrote: > >> Thanks Arpit. >> >> Notification rules has also been adjusted (thanks to INFRA). >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-

Re: [DISCUSS] Ozone 0.4.2 release

+1 > On Dec 6, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Dinesh Chitlangia wrote: > > All, > Since the Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.4.1 release, we have had significant > bug fixes towards performance & stability. > > With that in mind, 0.4.2 release would be good to consolidate all those fixes. > > Pls share your

Re: [VOTE] create ozone-dev and ozone-issues mailing lists

Thanks for kicking this off Marton. Submitted INFRA requests to create the following. The lists should be live soon. - ozone-dev@h.a.o - ozone-issues@h.a.o - ozone-commits@h.a.o > On Oct 31, 2019, at 3:32 AM, Elek, Marton wrote: > > > Thanks for all the votes and

Re: [VOTE] Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.5.0-beta RC0

Hi Dinesh, Thanks for spinning up this RC! Looks like we still had ~15 issues that were tagged as Blockers for 0.5.0 in jira. I’ve moved out most of them, however the remaining 4 look like must fixes.

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature branch for HDFS-14978 In-place Erasure Coding Conversion

+1 > On Jan 23, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Jitendra Pandey wrote: > > +1 for the feature branch. > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:34 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang > wrote: > Hi we are working on a feature to improve Erasure Coding, and I would like > to seek your opinion on creating a feature branch for it.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.5.0-beta RC1

mpiled sources >> * Ran ozone smoke test against both binary and locally compiled versions >> >> Thanks Dinesh for RC1. >> >> -Attila >> >> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 2:34 AM Arpit Agarwal >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:59 PM Arpit Agarwal > wrote: > >> Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the RM’s >> burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. >> >> >>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary

Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the RM’s burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote: > > + Dev mailing list. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Brahma Reddy Battula >

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary

ote: > > Sure, we can't make mandatory while voting and we can upload to downloads > once release vote is passed. > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 11:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal > wrote: > >>> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is >>> processed and upload

Re: [VOTE] Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.5.0-beta RC2

+1 binding. - Verified hashes and signatures - Built from source - Deployed to 5 node cluster - Tried ozone shell and filesystem operations - Ran freon stress test for a while with write validation I couldn’t find the RC2 tag in the gitbox repo, although

Re: [VOTE] Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.5.0-beta RC1

+1 (binding) Verified mds, sha512 Verified signatures Built from source Deployed to 3 node cluster Tried a few ozone shell and filesystem commands Ran freon load generator Thanks Dinesh for putting the RC1 together. > On Mar 6, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Dinesh Chitlangia wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > We

Re: [DISCUSS] which release lines should we still consider actively maintained?

+1 to EOL 3.1.x at least. > On May 23, 2021, at 9:51 PM, Wei-Chiu Chuang > wrote: > > Sean, > > For reasons I don't understand, I never received emails from your new > address in the mailing list. Only Akira's response. > > I was just able to start a thread like this. > > I am +1 to EOL

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate hadoop from log4j1 to log4j2

Hi Duo, Thank you for starting this discussion. Log4j1.2 bridge seems like a practical short-term solution. However the bridge will silently affect applications that add appenders or filters. NameNode audit logger and metrics come to mind. There may be others. Thanks, Arpit > On Jan 20,

[jira] [Created] (HDFS-4241) DataNode unit test failures on Windows

Arpit Agarwal created HDFS-4241: --- Summary: DataNode unit test failures on Windows Key: HDFS-4241 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4241 Project: Hadoop HDFS Issue Type: Bug

[jira] [Created] (HDFS-4297) Port datanode datanode concurrent reading and writing fixes to trunk-win

Arpit Agarwal created HDFS-4297: --- Summary: Port datanode datanode concurrent reading and writing fixes to trunk-win Key: HDFS-4297 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4297 Project: Hadoop

[jira] [Resolved] (HDFS-4241) DataNode unit test failures on Windows

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4241?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Arpit Agarwal resolved HDFS-4241. - Resolution: Fixed DataNode test failures are no longer reproducible on Windows as of 12/17/2012

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >