[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13674517#comment-13674517
]
Suresh Srinivas commented on HDFS-4872:
---------------------------------------
bq. One cited drawback of rename/delete is the two rpc requests. Won't
delete(path, inode) have the same drawback? Ie. 1 rpc to get inode + 1 rpc to
issue delete.
Yes. What I meant In my previous comment is, if rename + delete is a solution
that is being considered, which requires two requests anyway, get inode +
delete combination, which also requires two requests is a better solution.
Among many pluses, one important one is, it doesn't need to change file system
state twice. Thus the boundary conditions such as after rename, if the client
dies, no cleanup on namenode is needed.
> Idempotent delete operation.
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-4872
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4872
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: namenode
> Affects Versions: 2.0.4-alpha
> Reporter: Konstantin Shvachko
>
> Making delete idempotent is important to provide uninterrupted job execution
> in case of HA failover.
> This is to discuss different approaches to idempotent implementation of
> delete.
--
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
