+1 for the merge. I've read a majority of the code changes, excluding the BNN and 2NN, approaching from the "big diff" rather than individual patches, and starting with the files most changed from both current trunk and the 1073 branchpoint. I've found almost nothing to comment on. It looks like a solid job, it is a significant simplification of FSEditLog, and I have become confident that the merge should proceed. --Matt
From: Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:43:58 -0700 > +1 for the merge. I've reviewed all but a handful of the 50+ individual patches, also looked at the merge patch for sanity and it looks good. > > From: Jitendra Pandey <jiten...@hortonworks.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:23:39 -0700 > +1 for the merge. I haven't looked at BackupNode changes in much detail, > but apart from that the patch looks good. > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > HDFS-1073 is now complete and ready to be merged. Many thanks to those who > helped review in the last two weeks. > > Hudson test-patch results are available on HDFS-1073 JIRA - please see the > recent comments there for explanations. > > A few notes that may help you vote: > > - I have run the NNThroughputBenchmark and seen just a small regression in > logging performance due to the inclusion of a txid with every edit for > increased robustness. > - The NN read path and the read/write IO paths are entirely untouched by > these changes. > - Image and edit load time were benchmarked throughout development of the > branch and no significant regressions have been seen. > > Since this is a code change, all committers should feel free to vote. The > voting requires three committer +1s and no -1s to pass. I will not vote > since I contributed the majority of the code in the branch, though > obviously > I'm +1 :) > > -Todd > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
