Maybe their release notes are outdated or something, but it is there. See http://archive.cloudera.com/cdh/2/hadoop-0.20.1+169.89.CHANGES.txt
J-D On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Ferdy <ferdy.gal...@kalooga.com> wrote: > Cool thanks. These cloudera distributions certainly look promising. > > One final note, I could not find the HDFS-630 patch in the CDH2. I don't > mean to nitpick but I'm still left wondering if I should include it or not. > > Do you guys patch the CDH2 with HDFS-630 or what? Or would you say this > patch is not so important after all? > > Ferdy > > This seems to be the newest CDH2 release: > http://archive.cloudera.com/cdh/2/hadoop-0.20.1+169.89.releasenotes.html > > Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote: >> >> Yes, and to deploy the cloudera release on your cluster :) >> >> J-D >> >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Ferdy <ferdy.gal...@kalooga.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Allright so I will use a cloudera release. If I understand correctly, >>> this >>> includes simply replacing the Hadoop jar in the hbase/lib folder with the >>> cloudera hadoop core jar? >>> >>> Ferdy. >>> >>> On 07/01/2010 08:23 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Ferdy<ferdy.gal...@kalooga.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://hbase.apache.org/docs/r0.20.5/api/overview-summary.html#overview_description >>>>> >>>>> Here is states that it is recommended to use HDFS-630 patch for Hadoop. >>>>> So, >>>>> why does the hbase 0.20.5 contains a stock hadoop 0.20.2 jar? (Hadoop >>>>> 0.20.2 >>>>> does not have HDFS-630 fixed). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> What Ted said, and also we cannot ship with a patched jar simply >>>> because it's not a client side-only change. If we did, it would mean >>>> that our release of HBase wouldn't be compatible with any official >>>> Apache Hadoop release. >>>> >>>> I agree with Todd, you can simply use CDH2. This is what we do on all >>>> our clusters at StumbleUpon. >>>> >>>> J-D >>>> >>>> >
