Re: Name Node Corruption When Shutdown Too Soon

a jira on that, and attach logs, config file, whatever you may find helpful for reproducing the problem. Thanks, --Konstantin Shvachko On 2/7/2010 8:45 AM, Allen, Jonathan wrote: I've come across a name node bug and just wanted to check if it's a known issue before I formally raise it (I've had

Re: Name Node Corruption When Shutdown Too Soon

What is the value of dfs.name.edits.dir? Is it the default, which would be the same as dfs.name.dir, or is it different? Thanks, --Konstantin On 2/9/2010 12:05 PM, Allen, Jonathan wrote: Todd, Unfortunately my test system is air gapped away from the internet so I haven't been able to

Re: [VOTE] Commit hdfs-1024 to 0.20 branch

+1 I also thought that version mismatch is FB specific. Other people will not be able to run different versions of NN and SNN. --Konstantin On 4/2/2010 10:41 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Stackst...@duboce.net wrote: Please on committing HDFS-1024 to the hadoop

Re: Merging Namenode Federation feature (HDFS-1052) to trunk

numbers to alleviate your concerns. From that way I look at it, I think the federation-feature is a huge positive step in the right direction. thanks, dhruba On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Allen is right. This is a huge new feature

Re: Branch for HDFS-1073 and related work

+1 for creating a branch. Agree with Jakob this should not mean less intensive reviewing. --Konstantin On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote: Doing this work on a branch makes sense. +1. However, the patches that have been committed so far required extensive

Re: [Discuss] Merge federation branch HDFS-1052 into trunk

Suresh, Sanjay. 1. I asked for benchmarks many times over the course of different discussions on the topic. I don't see any numbers attached to jira, and I was getting the same response, Doug just got from you, guys: which is why would the performance be worse. And this is not an argument for me.

Re: [Discuss] Merge federation branch HDFS-1052 into trunk

Dhruba, It would be very valuable for the community to share your experience if you performed any independent testing of the federation branch. Thanks, --Konstantin On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Dhruba Borthakur dhr...@gmail.com wrote: I feel that making the datanode talk to multiple

Re: [Discuss] Merge federation branch HDFS-1052 into trunk

link to how this was done on a big feature, like say append and how benchmark info was captured? I am planning to run dfsio tests, btw. Regards, Suresh On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM, suresh srinivas srini30...@gmail.com wrote: Konstantin, On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Konstantin

Re: [Discuss] Merge federation branch HDFS-1052 into trunk

srini30...@gmail.com wrote: Konstantin, On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Suresh, Sanjay. 1. I asked for benchmarks many times over the course of different discussions on the topic. I don't see any numbers attached

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove append?

Hi Dave, Your opinion is very much appreciated. Thanks, --Konstantin On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Dave Shine dave.sh...@channelintelligence.com wrote: I am not a contributor to this project, so I don't know how much weight my opinion carries.  But I have been hoping to see append become

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove append?

Eli, I went over the entire discussion on the topic, and did not get it. Is there a problem with append? We know it does not work in hadoop-1, only flush() does. Is there anything wrong with the new append (HDFS-265)? If so please file a bug. I tested it in Hadoop-0.22 branch it works fine. I

Re: Heads up: merge for QJM branch soon

Hi Todd, I was wondering if you considered to make QuorumJournal a separate project or subproject. Given that - it is 6600 lines of code - the code is all new - well separated in a separate package - implements reliable journaling, which can have alternative approaches (say Bookeeper) Taking all

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-3077 (QuorumJournalManager) branch to trunk

I think this is a great work, Todd. And I think we should not merge it into trunk or other branches. As I suggested earlier on this list I think this should be spinned off as a separate project or a subproject. - The code is well detached as a self contained package. - It is a logically

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-3077 (QuorumJournalManager) branch to trunk

wrote: On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is a great work, Todd. And I think we should not merge it into trunk or other branches. As I suggested earlier on this list I think this should be spinned off as a separate project

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-3077 (QuorumJournalManager) branch to trunk

Don't understand your argument. Else where? One way or another users will be talking to Todd. Thanks, --Konst On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is a great work, Todd

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-3077 (QuorumJournalManager) branch to trunk

, because it is still Hadoop. --Konst On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Don't understand your argument. Else where? You suggest users should download HDFS and then go to another project

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-3077 (QuorumJournalManager) branch to trunk

different distributions compete outside the core. --Konst On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: Hi Todd, I had said previously that it's worth discussing if several other people believe the same. Well let's put it on to general list for discussion then? Seems

Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-3077 (QuorumJournalManager) branch to trunk

the SPOF in HDFS, within HDFS. I don't see how they make sense separately. On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: The SPOF is in HDFS. This project is about shared storage implementation, that could be replaced by NFS or BookKeeper or something else. Suppose failure happened

Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.3-alpha

+1 Downloaded src and binaries. Built from sources on CentOS 6.3 Ran dfsio, slive, examples, terasort. Tried gridmix, but it failed with some NPEs. Built HBase 0.94 with Hadoop 2.0.3 Ran HBase shell commands. Recompiled and ran different loads of YCSB. Checked documentation and the release notes.

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

I have attached a patch to the jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12571338/branch-trunk-win-min.patch The number of lines goes to 1537 lines from the original patch with 15958 lines. Suresh, this might be a confusing statement as your patch includes only Yarn changes.

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

-1 We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to supporting Windows platform. Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one. I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07. People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22

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

is the volunteer for this work, please speak up when it can be done. Thanks, --Konstantin On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM, sanjay Radia san...@hortonworks.com wrote: On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: Commitment is a good thing. I think the two builds that I proposed

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

version of Windows. I hope this will not turn into extraordinary or impractical effort. Thanks, --Konst Thanks, --Matt On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: -1 We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to supporting

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

) satisfy your request for functionality #1 and #2? Yes or no, please. Thanks, --Matt On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matt, On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Matt Foley mfo...@hortonworks.com wrote: Konstantin, I would like to explore

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

of these requirements. Please give me owner feedback as to whether my proposed work sounds like it will satisfy the requirements. Thank you, --Matt On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for? Thanks

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

, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: +1 on the merge. I am glad we agreed. Having Jira to track the CI effort is a good idea. Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Matt Foley mfo...@hortonworks.com wrote: Thanks. I agree

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

Arun, Could you please define the release plan and put it into vote. In accordance with the ByLaws. After this discussion of course. http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html Release Plan Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also nominates a Release Manager. Lazy majority of

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

Arun, Suresh, Very exciting to hear about this final push to stable Hadoop 2. But I have a problem. Either with the plan or with the version number. I'll be arguing for the number change below rather than the plan. 1. Based on features listed by Suresh it looks that you plan a heavy feature-full

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

to be very productive. Thanks, --Konstantin On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: Konstantin, On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: Do you think we can call the version you proposed to release 2.1.0 or 2.1.0-beta? The proposed new

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

If there are no objections, I'll start a vote on this proposal now. Thanks, --Konstantin On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Arun, I am agnostic about version numbers too, as long as the count goes up. The discussion you are referring

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative proposal, which would include - stabilization of current 2.0.4 - making all API

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative proposal, which would include - stabilization

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: Can anyone remember why we vote on release plans? -C To vote on features to include in the release. Thanks, --Konstantin

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

Hi Arun and Suresh, I am glad my choice of words attracted your attention. I consider this important for the project otherwise I wouldn't waste everybody's time. You tend reacting on a latest message taken out of context, which does not reveal full picture. I'll try here to summarize my proposal

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

+1 I verified checksums, the signature, built sources on CentOS, ran tests and a few hadoop commands. Thanks, --Konst On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha that I would like to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha? Technically, current branch-2 uses 2.0.5-SNAPSHOT and produces maven artifacts with that version. So having another version with the same numbers will be confusing. Therefore 4-level numbers. I thought I mentioned it to you before. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, May

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

Sounds like a plan. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur t...@cloudera.comwrote: Konstantin, Cos, As we change from 2.0.4.1 to 2.0.5 you'll need to do the following housekeeping as you work the new RC. * rename the svn branch * update the versions in the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.5-alpha (rc1)

+1 Did basic verification and testing. Thanks, --Konst On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.0.5-alpha that I would like to release. This is a stabilization release that includes fixed for a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.5-alpha (rc2)

+1 Thanks, --Konst On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: I have rolled out release candidate (rc2) for hadoop-2.0.5-alpha. The difference between rc1 and rc2 is the optimistic release date is set for 06/06/2013 in the CHANGES.txt files. The binary

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 0.23.8

+1 I did basic verification and testing of the rc. Thanks, --Konst On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Graves tgra...@yahoo-inc.comwrote: I've created a release candidate (RC0) for hadoop-0.23.8 that I would like to release. This release is a sustaining release with several important

Re: DesignLounge @ HadoopSummit

Should we talk about making HDFS operations idempotent in the spirit of HDFS-4849 and HDFS-4872? Physical discussions may be more efficient, which can save us jira writing time. I can work on a short summary of what was discussed so far, proposed approaches. Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Jun 24,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.6-alpha

+1 Verified checksums, signatures. Checked release notes. Built the sources and ran tests. Started a small cluster. Tried hadoop commands, ran a few jobs. Thanks, --Konst On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.6-alpha (RC1)

+1 Did the same as with rc0. Works for me. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.0.6-alpha that I would like to release. This is a stabilization release that includes fixed

Re: [Proposal] Pluggable Namespace

Milind, Seems as a proper time to open a Jira. Looks to me nobody is objecting to the general idea of AbstractNamesystem. As usually the details is what finally matters. FSNamesystem does have a formal interface called Namesystem now, but it is somewhat arbitrary and probably rudimentary for

Re: Deprecate BackupNode

I explained my reasoning in the jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4114?focusedCommentId=13841326page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13841326 And would like to ask people to hold off removing BN from trunk just yet. I see it beneficial for

Re: NameNode be formated while namenode is running

Yes format should check in_use.lock. What is your environment? Does it support locks on you local file system? Thanks, --Konst On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Stanley Shi s...@gopivotal.com wrote: Hi, I have encountered this case in my environment: 1. NameNode is actively running without

Re: NameNode be formated while namenode is running

, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: Yes format should check in_use.lock. What is your environment? Does it support locks on you local file system? Thanks, --Konst On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Stanley Shi s...@gopivotal.com wrote: Hi

Re: Re-swizzle 2.3

Sorry for the last minute request. Can we add HDFS-4858 to the release, please? It solves pretty important bug related to failover. I can commit momentarily if there are no objections. Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote: Just committed

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

+1 Thanks, --Konstantin 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

Re: Meetup invitation: Consensus based replication in Hadoop

:09PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: Hello hadoop developers, I just opened two jiras proposing to introduce ConsensusNode into HDFS and a Coordination Engine into Hadoop Common. The latter should benefit HDFS and HBase as well as potentially other projects. See HDFS-6469

Re: Meetup invitation: Consensus based replication in Hadoop

Ok, or Cos. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Few people asked about pick up from Bart. We can organize pick up from either West Dublin/Pleasanton Station or Walnut Creek Station. Whichever gets more requests until Monday 07/14. Please ping me

[DISCUSS] Porting truncate to branch 2.

Hey devs, This is to discuss whether new truncate feature should be ported to branch 2. Colin suggested in HDFS-3071 that we merge it in a week or two. Makes sense to me too. That way we can get it out in one of the next releases. Please raise your issues, concerns, or support here. Do we need

Re: 2.7 status

Progress is good! What are the four blockers? Could you please mark them as such in the Jira. Thanks, --Konst On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli vino...@hortonworks.com wrote: Progress has been really slow, but now we are down to four blockers across the board. I plan

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Andrew, Hadoop 3 seems in general like a good idea to me. 1. I did not understand if you propose to release 3.0 instead of 2.7 or in addition? I think 2.7 is needed at least as a stabilization step for the 2.x line. 2. If Hadoop 3 and 2.x are meant to exist together, we run a risk to manifest

Re: DISCUSSION: Patch commit criteria.

end up making a small javadoc/documentation change in the last version of patch before committing. It just avoids one more cycle and more delay. It's hard to codify this distinction though. Thanks +Vinod On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote

DISCUSSION: Patch commit criteria.

There were discussions on several jiras and threads recently about how RTC actually works in Hadoop. My opinion has always been that for a patch to be committed it needs an approval (+1) of at least one committer other than the author and no -1s. The Bylaws seem to be stating just that: Consensus

Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering for stable 2.8 and beyond

I don't think it makes sense to imprint the release quality with its version. They should be separate. And our recommendation for the quality can be reflected in the documentation. (1) is the way to go. We had alpha imprinted in 2.0.5-alpha version, but both 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 releases were quite

Re: Jenkins precommit-*-build

Thank you Allen! --Konst On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: HDFS, MAPREDUCE, and YARN have been migrated. Let me know of any issues and I’ll try to get to them as I can. This should be the end of the Jenkins race conditions for our pre commits!

Re: NameNode as a single point of failure

-edge thing. Am I right? I think that it's a good idea to have truly equal NNs doing their work in parallel, as Konstantin Shvachko mentioned. On 07/02/2015 04:49 PM, Esteban Gutierrez wrote: Hi Dmitry, Have you looked into the QJM automatic failover mode using the ZKFailoverController

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC0

Sorry for bringing this up late. I think we should pick up HDFS-9516 for this release. Rather critical bug fix, but up to you, Vinod. Thanks, --Konst On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Hi all, > > > I've created a release candidate RC0 for

Re: [Important] Lots of 2.8.0 commits are in branch-2 only

Sounds like branch-2.8 was cut off prematurely. What is the point of forking off if the release is not imminent. We don't want this thing branching like a banyan again, with each commit going into 5 branches. I think it would be easier to retire branch-2.8 for now, and reset it to branch-2.9 when

Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]

1. I probably missed something but I didn't get it how "alpha"s made their way into release numbers again. This was discussed on several occasions and I thought the common perception was to use just three level numbers for release versioning and avoid branding them. It is particularly confusing to

Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Konst, thanks for commenting, > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> 1. I probably missed something but I didn't get

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Hi everybody, Here is the next release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous stable release 2.7.3 was available since 25 August, 2016. Release 2.7.4 includes 264 issues fixed after release 2.7.3, which are critical bug fixes and major optimizations. See more details in Release Note:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

5 messagebus 4096 Jul 30 03:01 src > > > > --Brahma Reddy Battula > > -Original Message- > From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.had...@gmail.com] > Sent: 30 July 2017 07:29 > To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; > mapreduce-...@hadoop.a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

/jmx, /conf, /logLevel, and /stacks. It passed in branch-2.8. > > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hi everybody, >> >> Here is the next release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous stable >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToReleasePreDSBCR#Publishing Thanks, --Konst On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Akira Ajisaka <aajis...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Konstantin for the work! > I have a question: Where are the maven artifacts deployed? > > -Akira > > On 2017/07/30 8

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

more testing is still going on. I plan to build an RC next week. If there are no objection. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey guys. > > An update on 2.7.4 progress. > We are down to 4 blockers. There is s

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > + d...@yetus.apache.org > > > > Guys, could you please take a look. Seems like Yetus problem with > > pre-commit build for branch-2.7. > > > branch-2.7 is missing stuff in .gitignore.

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

+ d...@yetus.apache.org Guys, could you please take a look. Seems like Yetus problem with pre-commit build for branch-2.7. Thanks, --Konstantin On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Brahma Reddy Battula < brahmareddy.batt...@huawei.com> wrote: > Looks this problem is in only branc-2.7.. > > >

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

Allen, Should we add "patchprocess/" to .gitignore, is that the problem for 2.7? Thanks, --Konstantin On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > What stuff? Is there a jira? > It did work like a week ago. Is it a new Yetus requir

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

Or should we backport the entire HADOOP-11917 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11917> ? Thanks, --Konst On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Allen, > > Should we add "patchprocess/" to .gitigno

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Thursday, August 3, 2017, 7:19:07 AM CDT, Sunil G <sun...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks Konstantin >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> 1. Build tar ball from source package >>> 2. Ran basic MR jobs and verif

Re: How to restore data from HDFS rm -skipTrash

If you stopped the cluster immediately you may have a chance to restore most of the data. It's a manual and hacky process. You can use the Offline Edits Viewer to see the latest edits and cut off the delete transactions that was issues by mistake. Then you can restart the namenode with the

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Chris Douglas Konstantin Shvachko Non-binding +1s (13) John Zhuge Surendra Lilhore Masatake Iwasaki Hanisha Koneru Chen Liang Fnu Ajay Kumar Brahma Reddy Battula Edwina Lu Ye Zhou Eric Badger Mingliang Liu Kuhu Shukla Erik Krogen Thanks, --Konstantin On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Konstantin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

egal/release-policy.html goes into this in more > detail. A release must minimally include source packages, and can also > include binary artifacts. > > Best, > Andrew > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko < > shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> T

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Uploaded new binaries hadoop-2.7.4-RC0.tar.gz, which adds lib/native/. Same place: http://home.apache.org/~shv/hadoop-2.7.4-RC0/ Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Konstantin Shvachko &

Re: Are binary artifacts are part of a release?

The issue was discussed on several occasions in the past. Took me a while to dig this out as an example: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/20.mbox/%3C4EB0827C.6040204%40apache.org%3E Doug Cutting: "Folks should not primarily evaluate binaries when voting. The ASF

Re: Are binary artifacts are part of a release?

It does not. Just adding historical references, as Andrew raised the question. On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Allen Wittenauer <a...@effectivemachines.com> wrote: > > ... that doesn't contradict anything I said. > > > On Jul 31, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Konstantin Shvachko

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

sues.apache. > org/jira/browse/HDFS-11742 definitely was something that was deemed a > blocker for 2.8.2, not sure about 2.7.4. > > I’m ‘back’ - let me know if you need any help. > > Thanks > +Vinod > > On Jul 13, 2017, at 5:45 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> &

Moved remaining 16 Jiras targeted for version 2.7.4 to 2.7.5

Thanks, --Konst

Re: Moved remaining 16 Jiras targeted for version 2.7.4 to 2.7.5

And some more. On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, > --Konst >

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

on branch-2.7. Could anybody please take a look and help fixing the build. This would be very helpful for the release (2.7.4) process. Thanks, --Konst On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or should we backport the entire HADOOP-11917

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Akira, > > I didn't have private filters. Most probably Jira caches something. > Your filter is in the right direction, but for some reason it lists only > 22 issues, while mine has 29. > It miss

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

works fine: https://s.apache.org/Dzg4 > I couldn't see the link. Maybe is it private filter? > > Here is a link I generated: https://s.apache.org/ehKy > This filter includes resolved issue and excludes fixversion == 2.7.4 > > Thanks and Regards, > Akira > > On 2017/05/08 19:20, Kon

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

ps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Hadoop+2.7.4 >>> >>> If you want to edit this wiki, please ping me. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Akira >>> >>> >>> On 2017/05/23 4:42, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

Hey guys, I and a few of my colleagues would like to help here and move 2.7.4 release forward. A few points in this regard. 1. Reading through this thread since March 1 I see that Vinod hinted on managing the release. Vinod, if you still want the job / have bandwidth will be happy to work with

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:42 AM Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hey guys, >> >> I and a few of my colleagues would like to help here and move 2.7.4 >> release >> forward. A few points in this regard. >> >> 1. Re

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

ersion to fix vulnerability in old versions > > > > Regards > Brahma Reddy Battula > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Krogen [mailto:ekro...@linkedin.com.INVALID] > Sent: 06 May 2017 02:40 > To: Konstantin Shvachko > Cc: Zhe Zhang; Hadoop Common; Hdfs-dev; mapreduce-

Re: [VOTE] Merge feature branch YARN-5734 (API based scheduler configuration) to trunk, branch-3.0, branch-2

trol for who can change what configurations. > - The configuration storage backend is also pluggable. Currently an > in-memory, leveldb, and zookeeper implementation are supported. > > There were 15 subtasks completed for this feature. > > Huge thanks to everyone who helped with reviews

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.9.0 (RC3)

this release has been tested on fairly large > clusters, production users can wait for a subsequent point release which > will contain fixes from further stabilization and downstream adoption." > > Hope this suffices. > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Konst

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.9.0 (RC3)

Hey guys, I don't think this has been discussed, pardon if it was. As it stands today hadoop 2.9.0 is marked as stable release. Isn't that deceptive for users? Not to diminish the quality and not to understate the effort, which was huge and very much appreciated. But it is the first in the

VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC0)

Hi everybody, This is the next dot release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous one 2.7.4 was release August 4, 2017. Release 2.7.5 includes critical bug fixes and optimizations. See more details in Release Note: http://home.apache.org/~shv/hadoop-2.7.5-RC0/releasenotes.html The RC0 is

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.8.3 (RC0)

> Junping > > > -- > *From:* Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 9, 2017 11:06 AM > *To:* Junping Du > *Cc:* common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org; > mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Brahma Reddy Battula Eric Badger Jonathan Hung On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I updated CHANGES.txt and fixed documentation links. > Also committed MAPREDUCE-6165, which fixes a consistently failing tes

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Correction: With 7 binding and 4 non-binding +1s and no -1s the vote for Apache Release 2.7.5 passes. Thank you everybody for contributing to the release, testing it, and voting. Binding +1s Kihwal Lee Jason Lowe John Zhuge Rohith Sharma K S Eric Payne Zhe Zhang Konstantin Shvachko Non-binding

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Here is my formal +1. Thanks, --Konstantin On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I updated CHANGES.txt and fixed documentation links. > Also committed MAPREDUCE-6165, which fixes a consistently failing tes

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Zhang Konstantin Shvachko Naganarasimha Garla Non-binding +1s Erik Krogen Brahma Reddy Battula Eric Badger Jonathan Hung >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 Release Plan

and above, I would want to be more > cautious about it. > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hi developers, >> >> We have accumulated about 30 commits on branch-2.7. Those are mostly >> valuable bug fixes,

Re: Apache Hadoop 2.8.3 Release Plan

I would consider these two blockers for 2.8.3 as they crash NN: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12638 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12832 Thanks, --Konstantin On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Junping Du wrote: > Thanks Andrew and Wangda for

  1   2   3   4   >