[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3979?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13466082#comment-13466082
]
Kan Zhang commented on HDFS-3979:
---------------------------------
bq. I wonder why this was changed?
My guess is HDFS-265 intends to implement API3 rather than API4.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-265?focusedCommentId=12710542&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-12710542
> Fix hsync and hflush semantics.
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-3979
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-3979
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: data-node, hdfs client
> Affects Versions: 0.22.0, 0.23.0, 2.0.0-alpha
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Assignee: Lars Hofhansl
> Attachments: hdfs-3979-sketch.txt, hdfs-3979-v2.txt
>
>
> See discussion in HDFS-744. The actual sync/flush operation in BlockReceiver
> is not on a synchronous path from the DFSClient, hence it is possible that a
> DN loses data that it has already acknowledged as persisted to a client.
> Edit: Spelling.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
