Tsuyoshi, thanks for bringing up HDFS-6833. However, given it is a boundary
condition (and should not cause issues when for files with replication
factor 3), we should perhaps target this into 2.6.1 and not block this
release. Thoughts?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Tsuyoshi OZAWA
+1 (binding)
Verified the signatures and hashes for both src and binary tars. Built from
the source, the binary distribution and the documentation. Started a single
node cluster and tested the following:
- Started HDFS cluster, verified the hdfs CLI commands such ls, copying
data back and forth,
to be merged to branch-2.
Regards,
Tsz-Wo
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 7:00 AM, Suresh Srinivas
sur...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I actually would like to see both archival storage and single replica
memory writes to be in 2.6 release. Archival storage is in the final
stages
I actually would like to see both archival storage and single replica
memory writes to be in 2.6 release. Archival storage is in the final stages
of getting ready for branch-2 merge as Nicholas has already indicated on
the dev mailing list. Hopefully HDFS-6581 gets ready sooner. Both of these
Karthik,
I would like to see detailed information on how this migration will be
done, how it will affect the existing project and commit process. This
should be done in a document that can be reviewed instead of in an email
thread on an ad-hoc basis. Was there any voting on this in PMC and should
A recent change in Apache infra requires assignment of jiras by committers.
It was an unnecessary change. But it is what it is.
Let me know the jira number. I will assign it to you.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Varun Saxena vsaxena.va...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I want to be contribute to
+1 (binding)
Verified the signatures and hashes for both src and binary tars. Built from
the source, the binary distribution and the documentation. Started a single
node cluster and tested the following:
# Started HDFS cluster, verified the hdfs CLI commands such ls, copying
data back and forth,
Arun,
Some of the previously 2.4 targeted features were made available in 2.3:
- Heterogeneous storage support
- Datanode cache
The following are being targeted for 2.4:
- Use protobuf for fsimge (already in)
- ACLs (in trunk. In a week or so, this will be merged to branch-2.4)
- Rolling
Arun,
I propose the following changes for 2.3:
- There have been a lot of improvements related to supporting http policy.
- There is a still discussion going on, but I would like to deprecate
BackupNode in 2.3 as well.
- We are currently working on rolling upgrades related change in HDFS. We
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Folks,
I've created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.2.0 that I would like
to get released - this release fixes a small number of bugs and some
protocol/api issues which should ensure they are now
(This time copying all the lists)
I am +1 for naming the new branch 2.2.0.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Guys,
I took a look at the content in 2.1.2-beta so far, other than the
critical fixes such as HADOOP-9984 (symlinks) and few others in
+1 (binding)
Verified the signatures and hashes for both src and binary tars. Built from
the source, the binary distribution and the documentation. Started a single
node cluster and tested the following:
# Started HDFS cluster, verified the hdfs CLI commands such ls, copying
data back and
+1 (binding)
Verified the signatures. On a single node setup (non-secure), ran some HDFS
commands such copy files, list files, cat etc. Ran tests such as TestDFSIO,
nnbench, and testfilesystem. Verified namenode webUI.
Regards,
Suresh
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Arun C Murthy
Eli, I will post a more detailed reply soon. But one small correction:
I'm also not sure there's currently consensus on what an incompatible
change is. For example, I think HADOOP-9151 is incompatible because it
broke client/server wire compatibility with previous releases and any
change that
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 hard on the following features. I would like to
get into 2.x and see it reach HDFS
Adding other mailing lists I missed earlier.
Cos,
There is progress being made on that ticket. Also it has nothing to do with
that.
Please follow the discussion here and why this happened due to an invalid
commit that was reverted -
. This is not a blocker for me
because we often rely on individuals and groups to test Hadoop, but I do
think we need to have this discussion before we put it in.
--Bobby
On 2/26/13 4:55 PM, Suresh Srinivas sur...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win
Suresh Srinivas created YARN-317:
Summary: GetDelegationTokenResponseProto does not handle null token
Key: YARN-317
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-317
Project: Hadoop YARN
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Suresh Srinivas resolved YARN-213.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: trunk-win
+1. Committed to branch-trunk-win.
Thank you
19 matches
Mail list logo
