There is also some discussion on that JIRA considering a checksum strategy independent of block size. I don't think anything was ever implemented though, and there would be some drawbacks to that approach. Sorry if this caused confusion.
--Chris Nauroth On 5/24/16, 9:55 AM, "Dmitry Sivachenko" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
