[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5636?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13854417#comment-13854417
]
Colin Patrick McCabe commented on HDFS-5636:
--------------------------------------------
I think forcing users to do
{{directiveBuilder.setExpiry(Expiry.newRelative(CachePoolInfo.RELATIVE_EXPIRY_NEVER))}}
to set "no expiration time" is kind of gross. Why does the user need to know
how we're representing "never" in the protobuf? What about having
clearMaxRelativeExpiryMs, etc. functions in CacheDirectiveInfo#Builder and
CachePoolInfo#Builder so people don't have to wrestle with our internal
constants? Maybe all it has to do is set the field to null.
I also feel like MAX_RELATIVE_EXPIRY_MS should be a constant in Expiration, and
enforced in Expiration. You fixed the overflow for your code path-- but let's
fix it for every code path, rather than potentially letting users overflow us
with wacky values.
Change to TestFsDatasetCache#BLOCK_SIZE seems unrelated to the other changes.
would prefer to do this separately
> Enforce a max TTL per cache pool
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-5636
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5636
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: caching, namenode
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0
> Reporter: Andrew Wang
> Assignee: Andrew Wang
> Attachments: hdfs-5636-1.patch, hdfs-5636-2.patch
>
>
> It'd be nice for administrators to be able to specify a maximum TTL for
> directives in a cache pool. This forces all directives to eventually age out.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.4#6159)
