> On 24 May 2016, at 19:53, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Dmitry, > > To clarify, the intent of MAPREDUCE-5065 was to message the user that > using different block sizes on source and destination might cause a > failure to checksum mismatch. The message to the user recommends either > the -pb (preserve block size) or -skipCrc (skip checksum validation) as > potential workarounds. The intent of that patch was not to silently > proceed and report success when the block sizes are different, although > there was some discussion of that on the issue as a proposed solution. > > To the best of my knowledge, this behavior hasn't really changed. Only > the messaging to the user has changed to advise on some potential > workarounds.
Okay, sorry for misunderstanding, I thought the intention was to make checksum blocksize-independent (which would be very intuitive). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
