[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8647?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14957311#comment-14957311
]
Vinayakumar B commented on HDFS-8647:
-------------------------------------
bq. I was trying to point out that cherry-pick likely won't work. It is just to
make sure after I commit it to trunk, there is patch for reference in case I
need to manually resolve it as part of cherry-pick.
yes, correct.
What i exactly meant is, currently there will be lot of difference, since EC is
not merged to branch-2. after that it would be easy to merge. Anyway I am okay
if its okay to go with different patch for branch-2.
> Abstract BlockManager's rack policy into BlockPlacementPolicy
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-8647
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8647
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ming Ma
> Assignee: Brahma Reddy Battula
> Attachments: HDFS-8647-001.patch, HDFS-8647-002.patch,
> HDFS-8647-003.patch, HDFS-8647-004.patch, HDFS-8647-004.patch,
> HDFS-8647-005.patch
>
>
> Sometimes we want to have namenode use alternative block placement policy
> such as upgrade domains in HDFS-7541.
> BlockManager has built-in assumption about rack policy in functions such as
> useDelHint, blockHasEnoughRacks. That means when we have new block placement
> policy, we need to modify BlockManager to account for the new policy. Ideally
> BlockManager should ask BlockPlacementPolicy object instead. That will allow
> us to provide new BlockPlacementPolicy without changing BlockManager.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
