Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
There's still ongoing discussion on HDFS-4858 and I don't think we should hold up 2.3.0 for that. IMO we should target that for 2.3.1 or 2.4.0. -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > Sorry for the last minute request. > Can we add HDFS-4858 to the release, please? > It solves pretty important bug related to failover. > I can commit momentarily if there are no objections. > > Thanks, > --Konstantin > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > > > Just committed a fix for HDFS-5921 to branch-2.3. > > > > Fire away. > > > > -- > > Aaron T. Myers > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Aaron T. Myers > wrote: > > > > > OK. I think I should be able to get it in by 6pm PT, thanks to a quick > +1 > > > from Andrew, but certainly don't let it hold up the train if for some > > > reason it takes longer than that. > > > > > > -- > > > Aaron T. Myers > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Arun C Murthy > >wrote: > > > > > >> Looks like we are down to 0 blockers; I'll create rc0 tonight. > > >> > > >> ATM - Your call, you have until 6pm tonight to get this in. > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> Arun > > >> > > >> On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Aaron T. Myers" > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > I just filed an issue for the fact that browsing the FS from the NN > is > > >> > broken if you have a directory with the sticky bit set: > > >> > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5921 > > >> > > > >> > I didn't set this to be targeted for 2.3 because it doesn't seem > like > > a > > >> > _blocker_ to me, but if we're not going to get 2.3 out today anyway, > > I'd > > >> > like to put this in. It's a small fix, and since many people have > the > > >> > sticky bit set on /tmp, they won't be able to browse any of the FS > > >> > hierarchy from the NN without this fix. > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Aaron T. Myers > > >> > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > > >> vino...@apache.org > > >> >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Heres what I've done: > > >> >> - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, > > >> >> YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. > > >> >> - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. > > >> >> - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. > > >> >> - Compiled branch-2.3. > > >> >> > > >> >> Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. > > >> >> > > >> >> Thanks, > > >> >> +Vinod > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > > >> >> vino...@apache.org > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 > > >> (only). > > >> >> Tx > > >> >>> for the offline list. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> +Vinod > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur < > > t...@cloudera.com > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first > > >> batch, > > >> I'll send them off line to you. > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the > > code > > >> >> and > > >> > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. > > >> > > > >> > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do > that > > >> tomorrow > > >> > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > +Vinod > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur < > t...@cloudera.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Vinod, > > >> >> > > >> >> Nothing confidential, > > >> >> > > >> >> * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple > of > > >> >> days > > >> ago > > >> >> in YARN-1577 ( > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 > > >> >> ). > > >> >> > > >> >> * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases > > failing/getting > > >> suck > > >> >> with several token renewer threads, this failures happened > > >> consistently > > >> > at > > >> >> different places around the same testcases (like some file > > >> >> descriptors > > >> >> leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The > > potential > > >> issue > > >> >> with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into > this > > >> > situation > > >> >> thus becoming unstable. > > >> >> > > >> >> *Robert,* mind posting
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Sorry for the last minute request. Can we add HDFS-4858 to the release, please? It solves pretty important bug related to failover. I can commit momentarily if there are no objections. Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > Just committed a fix for HDFS-5921 to branch-2.3. > > Fire away. > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > > > OK. I think I should be able to get it in by 6pm PT, thanks to a quick +1 > > from Andrew, but certainly don't let it hold up the train if for some > > reason it takes longer than that. > > > > -- > > Aaron T. Myers > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Arun C Murthy >wrote: > > > >> Looks like we are down to 0 blockers; I'll create rc0 tonight. > >> > >> ATM - Your call, you have until 6pm tonight to get this in. > >> > >> thanks, > >> Arun > >> > >> On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Aaron T. Myers" > wrote: > >> > >> > I just filed an issue for the fact that browsing the FS from the NN is > >> > broken if you have a directory with the sticky bit set: > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5921 > >> > > >> > I didn't set this to be targeted for 2.3 because it doesn't seem like > a > >> > _blocker_ to me, but if we're not going to get 2.3 out today anyway, > I'd > >> > like to put this in. It's a small fix, and since many people have the > >> > sticky bit set on /tmp, they won't be able to browse any of the FS > >> > hierarchy from the NN without this fix. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Aaron T. Myers > >> > Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > >> vino...@apache.org > >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Heres what I've done: > >> >> - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, > >> >> YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. > >> >> - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. > >> >> - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. > >> >> - Compiled branch-2.3. > >> >> > >> >> Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> +Vinod > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > >> >> vino...@apache.org > >> >>> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 > >> (only). > >> >> Tx > >> >>> for the offline list. > >> >>> > >> >>> +Vinod > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur < > t...@cloudera.com > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first > >> batch, > >> I'll send them off line to you. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the > code > >> >> and > >> > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. > >> > > >> > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that > >> tomorrow > >> > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > +Vinod > >> > > >> > > >> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Vinod, > >> >> > >> >> Nothing confidential, > >> >> > >> >> * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of > >> >> days > >> ago > >> >> in YARN-1577 ( > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 > >> >> ). > >> >> > >> >> * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases > failing/getting > >> suck > >> >> with several token renewer threads, this failures happened > >> consistently > >> > at > >> >> different places around the same testcases (like some file > >> >> descriptors > >> >> leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The > potential > >> issue > >> >> with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this > >> > situation > >> >> thus becoming unstable. > >> >> > >> >> *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the > time > >> >> of > >> > test > >> >> hanging? > >> >> > >> >> After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to > fix > >> > issues > >> >> introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. > >> >> > >> >> Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 > seem > >> that > >> >> require more work before being stable. > >> >> > >> >> IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll > >> them > >> with > >> >> 2.4. If we want to do regular releases w
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Just committed a fix for HDFS-5921 to branch-2.3. Fire away. -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > OK. I think I should be able to get it in by 6pm PT, thanks to a quick +1 > from Andrew, but certainly don't let it hold up the train if for some > reason it takes longer than that. > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > >> Looks like we are down to 0 blockers; I'll create rc0 tonight. >> >> ATM - Your call, you have until 6pm tonight to get this in. >> >> thanks, >> Arun >> >> On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Aaron T. Myers" wrote: >> >> > I just filed an issue for the fact that browsing the FS from the NN is >> > broken if you have a directory with the sticky bit set: >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5921 >> > >> > I didn't set this to be targeted for 2.3 because it doesn't seem like a >> > _blocker_ to me, but if we're not going to get 2.3 out today anyway, I'd >> > like to put this in. It's a small fix, and since many people have the >> > sticky bit set on /tmp, they won't be able to browse any of the FS >> > hierarchy from the NN without this fix. >> > >> > -- >> > Aaron T. Myers >> > Software Engineer, Cloudera >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < >> vino...@apache.org >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Heres what I've done: >> >> - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, >> >> YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. >> >> - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. >> >> - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. >> >> - Compiled branch-2.3. >> >> >> >> Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> +Vinod >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < >> >> vino...@apache.org >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 >> (only). >> >> Tx >> >>> for the offline list. >> >>> >> >>> +Vinod >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur > >>> wrote: >> >>> >> Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first >> batch, >> I'll send them off line to you. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >> wrote: >> >> > >> > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code >> >> and >> > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. >> > >> > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that >> tomorrow >> > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > +Vinod >> > >> > >> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Vinod, >> >> >> >> Nothing confidential, >> >> >> >> * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of >> >> days >> ago >> >> in YARN-1577 ( >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 >> >> ). >> >> >> >> * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting >> suck >> >> with several token renewer threads, this failures happened >> consistently >> > at >> >> different places around the same testcases (like some file >> >> descriptors >> >> leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential >> issue >> >> with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this >> > situation >> >> thus becoming unstable. >> >> >> >> *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time >> >> of >> > test >> >> hanging? >> >> >> >> After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix >> > issues >> >> introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. >> >> >> >> Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem >> that >> >> require more work before being stable. >> >> >> >> IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll >> them >> with >> >> 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this >> >> kind >> of >> >> calls, else we will start dragging the releases. >> >> >> >> Sounds like a plan? >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hey >> >>> >> >>> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for >> progress. >> >>> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that >> > decision. >> >>> >> >>> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I >> >> was >
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
OK. I think I should be able to get it in by 6pm PT, thanks to a quick +1 from Andrew, but certainly don't let it hold up the train if for some reason it takes longer than that. -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Looks like we are down to 0 blockers; I'll create rc0 tonight. > > ATM - Your call, you have until 6pm tonight to get this in. > > thanks, > Arun > > On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Aaron T. Myers" wrote: > > > I just filed an issue for the fact that browsing the FS from the NN is > > broken if you have a directory with the sticky bit set: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5921 > > > > I didn't set this to be targeted for 2.3 because it doesn't seem like a > > _blocker_ to me, but if we're not going to get 2.3 out today anyway, I'd > > like to put this in. It's a small fix, and since many people have the > > sticky bit set on /tmp, they won't be able to browse any of the FS > > hierarchy from the NN without this fix. > > > > -- > > Aaron T. Myers > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > vino...@apache.org > >> wrote: > > > >> Heres what I've done: > >> - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, > >> YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. > >> - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. > >> - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. > >> - Compiled branch-2.3. > >> > >> Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> +Vinod > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > >> vino...@apache.org > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 (only). > >> Tx > >>> for the offline list. > >>> > >>> +Vinod > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur >>> wrote: > >>> > Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first > batch, > I'll send them off line to you. > > Thanks. > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > > > > > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code > >> and > > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. > > > > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that > tomorrow > > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. > > > > Thanks, > > +Vinod > > > > > > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > wrote: > > > >> Hi Vinod, > >> > >> Nothing confidential, > >> > >> * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of > >> days > ago > >> in YARN-1577 ( > >> > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 > >> ). > >> > >> * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting > suck > >> with several token renewer threads, this failures happened > consistently > > at > >> different places around the same testcases (like some file > >> descriptors > >> leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential > issue > >> with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this > > situation > >> thus becoming unstable. > >> > >> *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time > >> of > > test > >> hanging? > >> > >> After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix > > issues > >> introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. > >> > >> Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem > that > >> require more work before being stable. > >> > >> IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them > with > >> 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this > >> kind > of > >> calls, else we will start dragging the releases. > >> > >> Sounds like a plan? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hey > >>> > >>> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for > progress. > >>> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that > > decision. > >>> > >>> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I > >> was > >>> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this > new > >>> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> +Vinod > >>> > >>> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > > wrote: > >>> > Thanks Robert, > > A
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Looks like we are down to 0 blockers; I'll create rc0 tonight. ATM - Your call, you have until 6pm tonight to get this in. thanks, Arun On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Aaron T. Myers" wrote: > I just filed an issue for the fact that browsing the FS from the NN is > broken if you have a directory with the sticky bit set: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5921 > > I didn't set this to be targeted for 2.3 because it doesn't seem like a > _blocker_ to me, but if we're not going to get 2.3 out today anyway, I'd > like to put this in. It's a small fix, and since many people have the > sticky bit set on /tmp, they won't be able to browse any of the FS > hierarchy from the NN without this fix. > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > >> Heres what I've done: >> - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, >> YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. >> - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. >> - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. >> - Compiled branch-2.3. >> >> Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. >> >> Thanks, >> +Vinod >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < >> vino...@apache.org >>> wrote: >> >>> Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 (only). >> Tx >>> for the offline list. >>> >>> +Vinod >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur >> wrote: >>> Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first batch, I'll send them off line to you. Thanks. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code >> and > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. > > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that tomorrow > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > >> Hi Vinod, >> >> Nothing confidential, >> >> * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of >> days ago >> in YARN-1577 ( >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 >> ). >> >> * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting suck >> with several token renewer threads, this failures happened consistently > at >> different places around the same testcases (like some file >> descriptors >> leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential issue >> with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this > situation >> thus becoming unstable. >> >> *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time >> of > test >> hanging? >> >> After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix > issues >> introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. >> >> Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem that >> require more work before being stable. >> >> IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them with >> 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this >> kind of >> calls, else we will start dragging the releases. >> >> Sounds like a plan? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >> wrote: >> >>> Hey >>> >>> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for progress. >>> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that > decision. >>> >>> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I >> was >>> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this new >>> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? >>> >>> Thanks >>> +Vinod >>> >>> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > wrote: >>> Thanks Robert, All, So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious regressions. I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the >> 2.3 >>> branch and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I > would even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if >> they are >>> not ready in time). As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: YARN-1493 YARN-1490 YARN-
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I moved out HADOOP-10301 and HDFS-4564 out of 2.3 as they do not seem like regressions. Please revert back if you disagree. Given that, I think we are ready to cut a RC. +Vinod On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Heres what I've done: > - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, > YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. > - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. > - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. > - Compiled branch-2.3. > > Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > vino...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 (only). >> Tx for the offline list. >> >> +Vinod >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: >> >>> Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first batch, >>> I'll send them off line to you. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code and >>> > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. >>> > >>> > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that >>> tomorrow >>> > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > +Vinod >>> > >>> > >>> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi Vinod, >>> > > >>> > > Nothing confidential, >>> > > >>> > > * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of >>> days ago >>> > > in YARN-1577 ( >>> > > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 >>> > > ). >>> > > >>> > > * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting >>> suck >>> > > with several token renewer threads, this failures happened >>> consistently >>> > at >>> > > different places around the same testcases (like some file >>> descriptors >>> > > leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential >>> issue >>> > > with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this >>> > situation >>> > > thus becoming unstable. >>> > > >>> > > *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time >>> of >>> > test >>> > > hanging? >>> > > >>> > > After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix >>> > issues >>> > > introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. >>> > > >>> > > Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem >>> that >>> > > require more work before being stable. >>> > > >>> > > IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them >>> with >>> > > 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this >>> kind of >>> > > calls, else we will start dragging the releases. >>> > > >>> > > Sounds like a plan? >>> > > >>> > > Thanks. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> Hey >>> > >> >>> > >> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for >>> progress. >>> > >> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that >>> > decision. >>> > >> >>> > >> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I was >>> > >> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this >>> new >>> > >> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? >>> > >> >>> > >> Thanks >>> > >> +Vinod >>> > >> >>> > >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> Thanks Robert, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> All, >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious >>> > >>> regressions. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 >>> > >> branch >>> > >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I >>> > would >>> > >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if >>> they are >>> > >> not >>> > >>> ready in time). >>> > >>> >>> > >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> YARN-1493 >>> > >>> YARN-1490 >>> > >>> YARN-1166 >>> > >>> YARN-1041 >>> > >>> YARN-1566 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 >>> days >>> > >> ago: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> *YARN-1661 >>> > >>> *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to >>> the >>> > >>> previous ones but it is creating conflicts). >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that >>> is >>> > >>> broken until the broken stuff is fixed. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution >>> > while >>> > >>> committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." >>> >
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I just filed an issue for the fact that browsing the FS from the NN is broken if you have a directory with the sticky bit set: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5921 I didn't set this to be targeted for 2.3 because it doesn't seem like a _blocker_ to me, but if we're not going to get 2.3 out today anyway, I'd like to put this in. It's a small fix, and since many people have the sticky bit set on /tmp, they won't be able to browse any of the FS hierarchy from the NN without this fix. -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Heres what I've done: > - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, > YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. > - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. > - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. > - Compiled branch-2.3. > > Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > vino...@apache.org > > wrote: > > > Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 (only). > Tx > > for the offline list. > > > > +Vinod > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur >wrote: > > > >> Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first batch, > >> I'll send them off line to you. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code > and > >> > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. > >> > > >> > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that > >> tomorrow > >> > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > +Vinod > >> > > >> > > >> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Vinod, > >> > > > >> > > Nothing confidential, > >> > > > >> > > * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of > days > >> ago > >> > > in YARN-1577 ( > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 > >> > > ). > >> > > > >> > > * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting > >> suck > >> > > with several token renewer threads, this failures happened > >> consistently > >> > at > >> > > different places around the same testcases (like some file > descriptors > >> > > leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential > >> issue > >> > > with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this > >> > situation > >> > > thus becoming unstable. > >> > > > >> > > *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time > of > >> > test > >> > > hanging? > >> > > > >> > > After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix > >> > issues > >> > > introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. > >> > > > >> > > Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem > >> that > >> > > require more work before being stable. > >> > > > >> > > IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them > >> with > >> > > 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this > kind > >> of > >> > > calls, else we will start dragging the releases. > >> > > > >> > > Sounds like a plan? > >> > > > >> > > Thanks. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Hey > >> > >> > >> > >> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for > >> progress. > >> > >> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that > >> > decision. > >> > >> > >> > >> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I > was > >> > >> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this > >> new > >> > >> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> +Vinod > >> > >> > >> > >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Thanks Robert, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> All, > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious > >> > >>> regressions. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the > 2.3 > >> > >> branch > >> > >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I > >> > would > >> > >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if > they > >> are > >> > >> not > >> > >>> ready in time). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> YARN-1493 > >> > >>> YARN-1490 > >> > >>> YARN-1166 > >> > >>> YARN-1041 > >> > >>> YARN-1566 > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 > >>
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Heres what I've done: - Reverted YARN-1493,YARN-1490,YARN-1041, YARN-1166,YARN-1566,YARN-1689,YARN-1661 from branch-2.3. - Updated YARN's CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. - Updated these JIRAs to have 2.4 as the fix-version. - Compiled branch-2.3. Let me know if you run into any issues caused by this revert. Thanks, +Vinod On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 (only). Tx > for the offline list. > > +Vinod > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > >> Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first batch, >> I'll send them off line to you. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >> wrote: >> >> > >> > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code and >> > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. >> > >> > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that >> tomorrow >> > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > +Vinod >> > >> > >> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Vinod, >> > > >> > > Nothing confidential, >> > > >> > > * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of days >> ago >> > > in YARN-1577 ( >> > > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 >> > > ). >> > > >> > > * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting >> suck >> > > with several token renewer threads, this failures happened >> consistently >> > at >> > > different places around the same testcases (like some file descriptors >> > > leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential >> issue >> > > with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this >> > situation >> > > thus becoming unstable. >> > > >> > > *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time of >> > test >> > > hanging? >> > > >> > > After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix >> > issues >> > > introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. >> > > >> > > Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem >> that >> > > require more work before being stable. >> > > >> > > IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them >> with >> > > 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this kind >> of >> > > calls, else we will start dragging the releases. >> > > >> > > Sounds like a plan? >> > > >> > > Thanks. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hey >> > >> >> > >> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for >> progress. >> > >> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that >> > decision. >> > >> >> > >> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I was >> > >> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this >> new >> > >> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? >> > >> >> > >> Thanks >> > >> +Vinod >> > >> >> > >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Thanks Robert, >> > >>> >> > >>> All, >> > >>> >> >> > >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious >> > >>> regressions. >> > >>> >> > >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 >> > >> branch >> > >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I >> > would >> > >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they >> are >> > >> not >> > >>> ready in time). >> > >>> >> > >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: >> > >>> >> > >>> YARN-1493 >> > >>> YARN-1490 >> > >>> YARN-1166 >> > >>> YARN-1041 >> > >>> YARN-1566 >> > >>> >> > >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 >> days >> > >> ago: >> > >>> >> > >>> *YARN-1661 >> > >>> *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the >> > >>> previous ones but it is creating conflicts). >> > >>> >> > >>> I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that >> is >> > >>> broken until the broken stuff is fixed. >> > >>> >> > >>> Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution >> > while >> > >>> committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." >> > >>> >> > >>> YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. >> > >>> >> > >>> Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from >> > branch-2.3 >> > >>> tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. >> > >>> >> > >>> I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thoughts? >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter > > >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> >>
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Haven't heard back from Jian. Reverting the set from branch-2.3 (only). Tx for the offline list. +Vinod On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first batch, > I'll send them off line to you. > > Thanks. > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > > > > > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code and > > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. > > > > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that > tomorrow > > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. > > > > Thanks, > > +Vinod > > > > > > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > wrote: > > > > > Hi Vinod, > > > > > > Nothing confidential, > > > > > > * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of days > ago > > > in YARN-1577 ( > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 > > > ). > > > > > > * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting suck > > > with several token renewer threads, this failures happened consistently > > at > > > different places around the same testcases (like some file descriptors > > > leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential > issue > > > with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this > > situation > > > thus becoming unstable. > > > > > > *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time of > > test > > > hanging? > > > > > > After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix > > issues > > > introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. > > > > > > Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem > that > > > require more work before being stable. > > > > > > IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them > with > > > 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this kind > of > > > calls, else we will start dragging the releases. > > > > > > Sounds like a plan? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hey > > >> > > >> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for > progress. > > >> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that > > decision. > > >> > > >> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I was > > >> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this > new > > >> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> +Vinod > > >> > > >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thanks Robert, > > >>> > > >>> All, > > >>> > > >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious > > >>> regressions. > > >>> > > >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 > > >> branch > > >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I > > would > > >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they > are > > >> not > > >>> ready in time). > > >>> > > >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: > > >>> > > >>> YARN-1493 > > >>> YARN-1490 > > >>> YARN-1166 > > >>> YARN-1041 > > >>> YARN-1566 > > >>> > > >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days > > >> ago: > > >>> > > >>> *YARN-1661 > > >>> *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the > > >>> previous ones but it is creating conflicts). > > >>> > > >>> I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is > > >>> broken until the broken stuff is fixed. > > >>> > > >>> Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution > > while > > >>> committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." > > >>> > > >>> YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. > > >>> > > >>> Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from > > branch-2.3 > > >>> tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. > > >>> > > >>> I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think > it > > >> was > > causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: > > > > Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across > all > > >> unit > > tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test > > >> order, > > the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on > > >> slower > > machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some > digging, > > I > > found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refus
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
sire, as sandy said, lets keep it in branch 2 for now and if not resolved by 2.4 timeframe we'll revert them there. thx Alejandro (phone typing) > On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:14, Steve Loughran wrote: > >> On 6 February 2014 17:07, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: >> >> Thanks Robert, >> >> All, >> >> >> >> I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > -1 to that; if there are issues we should be able to find and fix them soon > enough. Even if you aren't doing long-lived YARN services yet, even llama > benefits from this zero-container-loss on AM restart. > > We do have Hoya using this (introspection code because the protobuf > structures are hidden away), means that you can kill the AM and HBase & > Accumulo clusters stay up in their YARN containers, the restarted AM gets > that list of containers (and any pending events), rebuilds its data > structures and carries on as before. Sweet! > > https://github.com/hortonworks/hoya/blob/develop/hoya-core/src/main/java/org/apache/hoya/yarn/appmaster/HoyaAppMaster.java#L551 > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
On 6 February 2014 17:07, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > Thanks Robert, > > All, > > > > I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > > -1 to that; if there are issues we should be able to find and fix them soon enough. Even if you aren't doing long-lived YARN services yet, even llama benefits from this zero-container-loss on AM restart. We do have Hoya using this (introspection code because the protobuf structures are hidden away), means that you can kill the AM and HBase & Accumulo clusters stay up in their YARN containers, the restarted AM gets that list of containers (and any pending events), rebuilds its data structures and carries on as before. Sweet! https://github.com/hortonworks/hoya/blob/develop/hoya-core/src/main/java/org/apache/hoya/yarn/appmaster/HoyaAppMaster.java#L551 -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Vinod, I have the patches to revert most of the JIRAs, the first batch, I'll send them off line to you. Thanks. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > > Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code and > between him/me, we can take care of those issues. > > +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that tomorrow > morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > > On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > > > Hi Vinod, > > > > Nothing confidential, > > > > * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of days ago > > in YARN-1577 ( > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 > > ). > > > > * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting suck > > with several token renewer threads, this failures happened consistently > at > > different places around the same testcases (like some file descriptors > > leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential issue > > with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this > situation > > thus becoming unstable. > > > > *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time of > test > > hanging? > > > > After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix > issues > > introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. > > > > Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem that > > require more work before being stable. > > > > IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them with > > 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this kind of > > calls, else we will start dragging the releases. > > > > Sounds like a plan? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > > wrote: > > > >> Hey > >> > >> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for progress. > >> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that > decision. > >> > >> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I was > >> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this new > >> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? > >> > >> Thanks > >> +Vinod > >> > >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur > wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks Robert, > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious > >>> regressions. > >>> > >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 > >> branch > >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I > would > >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are > >> not > >>> ready in time). > >>> > >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: > >>> > >>> YARN-1493 > >>> YARN-1490 > >>> YARN-1166 > >>> YARN-1041 > >>> YARN-1566 > >>> > >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days > >> ago: > >>> > >>> *YARN-1661 > >>> *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the > >>> previous ones but it is creating conflicts). > >>> > >>> I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is > >>> broken until the broken stuff is fixed. > >>> > >>> Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution > while > >>> committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." > >>> > >>> YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. > >>> > >>> Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from > branch-2.3 > >>> tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. > >>> > >>> I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter > >> wrote: > >>> > I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it > >> was > causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: > > Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all > >> unit > tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test > >> order, > the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on > >> slower > machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, > I > found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on > LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. > > After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away > once > YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact > problem. > Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned > that > >> it > could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where > everything isn't running on the same machine)
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Thanks. please post your findings, Jian wrote this part of the code and between him/me, we can take care of those issues. +1 for going ahead with the revert on branch-2.3. I'll go do that tomorrow morning unless I hear otherwise from Jian. Thanks, +Vinod On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > Nothing confidential, > > * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of days ago > in YARN-1577 ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 > ). > > * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting suck > with several token renewer threads, this failures happened consistently at > different places around the same testcases (like some file descriptors > leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential issue > with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this situation > thus becoming unstable. > > *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time of test > hanging? > > After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix issues > introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. > > Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem that > require more work before being stable. > > IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them with > 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this kind of > calls, else we will start dragging the releases. > > Sounds like a plan? > > Thanks. > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > >> Hey >> >> I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for progress. >> But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that decision. >> >> There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I was >> thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this new >> issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? >> >> Thanks >> +Vinod >> >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: >> >>> Thanks Robert, >>> >>> All, >>> >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious >>> regressions. >>> >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 >> branch >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I would >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are >> not >>> ready in time). >>> >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: >>> >>> YARN-1493 >>> YARN-1490 >>> YARN-1166 >>> YARN-1041 >>> YARN-1566 >>> >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days >> ago: >>> >>> *YARN-1661 >>> *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the >>> previous ones but it is creating conflicts). >>> >>> I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is >>> broken until the broken stuff is fixed. >>> >>> Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while >>> committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." >>> >>> YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. >>> >>> Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from branch-2.3 >>> tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. >>> >>> I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter >> wrote: >>> I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it >> was causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all >> unit tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test >> order, the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on >> slower machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, I found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away once YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact problem. Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned that >> it could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where everything isn't running on the same machine) that we haven't seen yet. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote: > I have marked MAPREDUCE-5744 a blocker for 2.3. Committing it shortly. Will > pull it out of branch-2.3 if anyone objects. > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Arpit Agarwal < >> aagar...@hortonworks.com >> wrote: > >> Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. >>
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Hi Vinod, Nothing confidential, * With umanaged AMs I'm seeing the trace I've posted a couple of days ago in YARN-1577 ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1577?focusedCommentId=13891853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13891853 ). * Also, Robert has been digging in Oozie testcases failing/getting suck with several token renewer threads, this failures happened consistently at different places around the same testcases (like some file descriptors leaking out), reverting YARN-1490 fixes the problem. The potential issue with this is that a long running client (oozie) my run into this situation thus becoming unstable. *Robert,* mind posting to YARN-1490 the jvm thread dump at the time of test hanging? After YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 we have a couple of JIRAs trying to fix issues introduced by them, and we still didn't get them right. Because this, the improvements driven by YARN-1493 & YARN-1490 seem that require more work before being stable. IMO, being conservative, we should do 2.3 without them and roll them with 2.4. If we want to do regular releases we will have to make this kind of calls, else we will start dragging the releases. Sounds like a plan? Thanks. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Hey > > I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for progress. > But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that decision. > > There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I was > thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this new > issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? > > Thanks > +Vinod > > On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > > > Thanks Robert, > > > > All, > > > > So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious > > regressions. > > > > I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 > branch > > and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I would > > even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are > not > > ready in time). > > > > As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: > > > > YARN-1493 > > YARN-1490 > > YARN-1166 > > YARN-1041 > > YARN-1566 > > > > Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days > ago: > > > > *YARN-1661 > > *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the > > previous ones but it is creating conflicts). > > > > I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is > > broken until the broken stuff is fixed. > > > > Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while > > committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." > > > > YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. > > > > Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from branch-2.3 > > tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. > > > > I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter > wrote: > > > >> I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it > was > >> causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: > >> > >> Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all > unit > >> tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test > order, > >> the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on > slower > >> machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, I > >> found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on > >> LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. > >> > >> After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away once > >> YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact problem. > >> Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned that > it > >> could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where > >> everything isn't running on the same machine) that we haven't seen yet. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Karthik Kambatla > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I have marked MAPREDUCE-5744 a blocker for 2.3. Committing it shortly. > >> Will > >>> pull it out of branch-2.3 if anyone objects. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Arpit Agarwal < > aagar...@hortonworks.com > wrote: > >>> > Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Arpit Agarwal < > >> aagar...@hortonworks.com > > wrote: > > > IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. > > > > I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur < > >> t...@cloudera.com > > wrote: > > > >> IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
yep, the idea is to pull all of them out from branch2.3. things go back to normal then. thanks Alejandro (phone typing) > On Feb 6, 2014, at 17:39, Zhijie Shen wrote: > > Recently I brought 4 JIRAs to branch-2.3, which are MAPREDUCE-5743, YARN-1628, > YARN-1661 and YARN-1689. Recall that we mark test failure fixes as blockers > for pior releases as closing to release, thus I brought to branch-2.3 > MAPREDUCE-5743 > and YARN-1628 that are the fixes for the test failure on 2.3.0, but didn't > marked them as blockers. Please let me know if I should do that. > > YARN-1661 is a fix for exit log of DS AppMaster, otherwise the exit log of > it will always be failure, which sounds a critical issue to me. Feel free > to pull it out if any objects. > > YARN-1689 is brought to branch-2.3 as YARN-1493 is still in this branch. It > fixes one bug caused by YARN-1493. Those should be included or excluded > together upon the decision. > > Thanks, > Zhijie > > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: >> >> +1 to reverting those JIRAs from branch-2.3. As YARN-1689 is fixing a >> problem caused by YARN-1493 I think we can revert it in branch-2.3 as well. >> >> I think we should leave them in branch-2 for now. We can revert if 2.4 is >> imminent and they're holding it up, but hopefully the issues they caused >> will be fixed by then. >> >> -Sandy >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Robert, >>> >>> All, >>> >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious >>> regressions. >>> >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 >> branch >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I would >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are >> not >>> ready in time). >>> >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: >>> >>> YARN-1493 >>> YARN-1490 >>> YARN-1166 >>> YARN-1041 >>> YARN-1566 >>> >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days >> ago: >>> >>> *YARN-1661 >>> *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the >>> previous ones but it is creating conflicts). >>> >>> I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is >>> broken until the broken stuff is fixed. >>> >>> Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while >>> committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." >>> >>> YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. >>> >>> Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from branch-2.3 >>> tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. >>> >>> I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter >>> wrote: >>> I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it >>> was causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all >>> unit tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test >> order, the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on >>> slower machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, I found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away once YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact problem. Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned >> that >>> it could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where everything isn't running on the same machine) that we haven't seen yet. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote: > I have marked MAPREDUCE-5744 a blocker for 2.3. Committing it >> shortly. Will > pull it out of branch-2.3 if anyone objects. > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Arpit Agarwal < >>> aagar...@hortonworks.com >> wrote: > >> Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Arpit Agarwal < aagar...@hortonworks.com >>> wrote: >> >>> IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. >>> >>> I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur < t...@cloudera.com >>> wrote: >>> IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a >> very odd ways (to the point it seems un-deterministic). I'd say eiher YARN-1577 is fixed or we revert YARN-1493/YARN-1490/YARN-1166/YARN-1041/YARN-1566 (almost clean > rev
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Recently I brought 4 JIRAs to branch-2.3, which are MAPREDUCE-5743, YARN-1628, YARN-1661 and YARN-1689. Recall that we mark test failure fixes as blockers for pior releases as closing to release, thus I brought to branch-2.3 MAPREDUCE-5743 and YARN-1628 that are the fixes for the test failure on 2.3.0, but didn't marked them as blockers. Please let me know if I should do that. YARN-1661 is a fix for exit log of DS AppMaster, otherwise the exit log of it will always be failure, which sounds a critical issue to me. Feel free to pull it out if any objects. YARN-1689 is brought to branch-2.3 as YARN-1493 is still in this branch. It fixes one bug caused by YARN-1493. Those should be included or excluded together upon the decision. Thanks, Zhijie On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > +1 to reverting those JIRAs from branch-2.3. As YARN-1689 is fixing a > problem caused by YARN-1493 I think we can revert it in branch-2.3 as well. > > I think we should leave them in branch-2 for now. We can revert if 2.4 is > imminent and they're holding it up, but hopefully the issues they caused > will be fixed by then. > > -Sandy > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >wrote: > > > Thanks Robert, > > > > All, > > > > So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious > > regressions. > > > > I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 > branch > > and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I would > > even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are > not > > ready in time). > > > > As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: > > > > YARN-1493 > > YARN-1490 > > YARN-1166 > > YARN-1041 > > YARN-1566 > > > > Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days > ago: > > > > *YARN-1661 > > *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the > > previous ones but it is creating conflicts). > > > > I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is > > broken until the broken stuff is fixed. > > > > Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while > > committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." > > > > YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. > > > > Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from branch-2.3 > > tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. > > > > I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter > > wrote: > > > > > I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it > > was > > > causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: > > > > > > Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all > > unit > > > tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test > order, > > > the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on > > slower > > > machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, I > > > found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on > > > LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. > > > > > > After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away once > > > YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact problem. > > > Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned > that > > it > > > could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where > > > everything isn't running on the same machine) that we haven't seen yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Karthik Kambatla > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have marked MAPREDUCE-5744 a blocker for 2.3. Committing it > shortly. > > > Will > > > > pull it out of branch-2.3 if anyone objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Arpit Agarwal < > > aagar...@hortonworks.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Arpit Agarwal < > > > aagar...@hortonworks.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur < > > > t...@cloudera.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a > very > > > odd > > > > > >> ways > > > > > >> (to the point it seems un-deterministic). > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'd say eiher YARN-1577 is fixed or we revert > > > > > >> YARN-1493/YARN-1490/YARN-1166/YARN-1041/YARN-1566 (almost clean > > > > reverts) > > > > > >> from Hadoop 2.3 branch before doing the release. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I've verified that after reverting those JIRAs things wor
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Do you guys think that committing https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4858 to branch-2.3 is still Ok? It is a small change that bring fixes broken timeout behavior of DN to NN RPC. We have been testing this fix on top of 2.0.6 for a long time now and it seems to be a real help. Appreciate the feedback on 2.3 scope. If it is too late then I will commit it to trunk, branch-2.4 and branch-2 only. Regards, Cos On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 05:44PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > yep, the idea is to pull all of them out from branch2.3. things go back to > normal then. > > thanks > > Alejandro > (phone typing) > > > On Feb 6, 2014, at 17:39, Zhijie Shen wrote: > > > > Recently I brought 4 JIRAs to branch-2.3, which are MAPREDUCE-5743, > > YARN-1628, > > YARN-1661 and YARN-1689. Recall that we mark test failure fixes as blockers > > for pior releases as closing to release, thus I brought to branch-2.3 > > MAPREDUCE-5743 > > and YARN-1628 that are the fixes for the test failure on 2.3.0, but didn't > > marked them as blockers. Please let me know if I should do that. > > > > YARN-1661 is a fix for exit log of DS AppMaster, otherwise the exit log of > > it will always be failure, which sounds a critical issue to me. Feel free > > to pull it out if any objects. > > > > YARN-1689 is brought to branch-2.3 as YARN-1493 is still in this branch. It > > fixes one bug caused by YARN-1493. Those should be included or excluded > > together upon the decision. > > > > Thanks, > > Zhijie > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > >> > >> +1 to reverting those JIRAs from branch-2.3. As YARN-1689 is fixing a > >> problem caused by YARN-1493 I think we can revert it in branch-2.3 as well. > >> > >> I think we should leave them in branch-2 for now. We can revert if 2.4 is > >> imminent and they're holding it up, but hopefully the issues they caused > >> will be fixed by then. > >> > >> -Sandy > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks Robert, > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious > >>> regressions. > >>> > >>> I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 > >> branch > >>> and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I would > >>> even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are > >> not > >>> ready in time). > >>> > >>> As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: > >>> > >>> YARN-1493 > >>> YARN-1490 > >>> YARN-1166 > >>> YARN-1041 > >>> YARN-1566 > >>> > >>> Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days > >> ago: > >>> > >>> *YARN-1661 > >>> *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the > >>> previous ones but it is creating conflicts). > >>> > >>> I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is > >>> broken until the broken stuff is fixed. > >>> > >>> Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while > >>> committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." > >>> > >>> YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. > >>> > >>> Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from branch-2.3 > >>> tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. > >>> > >>> I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter > >>> wrote: > >>> > I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it > >>> was > causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: > > Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all > >>> unit > tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test > >> order, > the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on > >>> slower > machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, I > found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on > LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. > > After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away once > YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact problem. > Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned > >> that > >>> it > could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where > everything isn't running on the same machine) that we haven't seen yet. > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Karthik Kambatla > wrote: > > > I have marked MAPREDUCE-5744 a blocker for 2.3. Committing it > >> shortly. > Will > > pull it out of branch-2.3 if anyone objects. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Arpit Agarwal < > >>> aagar...@hortonworks.com > >> wrote: > >
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Hey I am not against removing them from 2.3 if that is helpful for progress. But I want to understand what the issues are before we make that decision. There is the issue with unmanaged AM that is clearly known and I was thinking of coming to the past two days, but couldn't. What is this new issue that we (confidently?) pinned down to YARN-1490? Thanks +Vinod On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > Thanks Robert, > > All, > > So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious > regressions. > > I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 branch > and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I would > even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are not > ready in time). > > As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: > > YARN-1493 > YARN-1490 > YARN-1166 > YARN-1041 > YARN-1566 > > Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days ago: > > *YARN-1661 > *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the > previous ones but it is creating conflicts). > > I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is > broken until the broken stuff is fixed. > > Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while > committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." > > YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. > > Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from branch-2.3 > tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. > > I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks. > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter wrote: > >> I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it was >> causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: >> >> Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all unit >> tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test order, >> the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on slower >> machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, I >> found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on >> LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. >> >> After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away once >> YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact problem. >> Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned that it >> could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where >> everything isn't running on the same machine) that we haven't seen yet. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Karthik Kambatla >> wrote: >> >>> I have marked MAPREDUCE-5744 a blocker for 2.3. Committing it shortly. >> Will >>> pull it out of branch-2.3 if anyone objects. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Arpit Agarwal >>> wrote: >>> Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Arpit Agarwal < >> aagar...@hortonworks.com > wrote: > IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. > > I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur < >> t...@cloudera.com > wrote: > >> IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a very >> odd >> ways >> (to the point it seems un-deterministic). >> >> I'd say eiher YARN-1577 is fixed or we revert >> YARN-1493/YARN-1490/YARN-1166/YARN-1041/YARN-1566 (almost clean >>> reverts) >> from Hadoop 2.3 branch before doing the release. >> >> >> I've verified that after reverting those JIRAs things work fine with >> unmanaged AMs. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Arun C Murthy >> >> wrote: >> >>> I punted YARN-1444 to 2.4 since it's a long-standing issue. >>> >>> Jian is away and I don't see YARN-1577 & YARN-1206 making much progress >>> till he is back; so I'm inclined to push both to 2.4 too. Any >> objections? >>> >>> Looks like Daryn has both HADOOP-10301 & HDFS-4564 covered. >>> >>> Overall, I'll try get this out in next couple of days if we can >>> clear >> the >>> list. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Arun >>> >>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >>> An update. Per https://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers we >> are now >>> down to 5 blockers: 1 Common, 1 HDFS, 3 YARN. Daryn (thanks!) has both the non-YARN covered. Vinod is helping >>> out >> with >>> the YARN ones. thanks, Arun >>> >>> -- >>> Arun C. Murthy >>> Hortonworks Inc. >>> http://horton
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Thanks Robert, All, So it seems that YARN-1493 and YARN-1490 are introducing serious regressions. I would propose to revert them and the follow up JIRAs from the 2.3 branch and keep working on them on trunk/branch-2 until the are stable (I would even prefer reverting them from branch-2 not to block a 2.4 if they are not ready in time). As I've mentioned before, the list of JIRAs to revert were: YARN-1493 YARN-1490 YARN-1166 YARN-1041 YARN-1566 Plus 2 additional JIRAs committed since my email on this issue 2 days ago: *YARN-1661 *YARN-1689 (not sure if this JIRA is related in functionality to the previous ones but it is creating conflicts). I think we should hold on continuing work on top of something that is broken until the broken stuff is fixed. Quoting Arun, "Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3." YARN-1661 & YARN-1689 are not blockers. Unless there are objections, I'll revert all these JIRAs from branch-2.3 tomorrow around noon and I'll update fixedVersion in the JIRAs. I'm inclined to revert them from branch-2 as well. Thoughts? Thanks. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Robert Kanter wrote: > I think we should revert YARN-1490 from Hadoop 2.3 branch. I think it was > causing some strange behavior in the Oozie unit tests: > > Basically, we use a single MiniMRCluster and MiniDFSCluster across all unit > tests in a module. With YARN-1490 we saw that, regardless of test order, > the last few tests would timeout waiting for an MR job to finish; on slower > machines, the entire test suite would timeout. Through some digging, I > found that we were getting a ton of "Connection refused" Exceptions on > LeaseRenewer talking to the NN and a few on the AM talking to the RM. > > After a bunch of investigation, I found that the problem went away once > YARN-1490 was removed. Though I couldn't figure out the exact problem. > Even though this occurred in unit tests, it does make me concerned that it > could indicate some bigger issue in a long-running real cluster (where > everything isn't running on the same machine) that we haven't seen yet. > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Karthik Kambatla > wrote: > > > I have marked MAPREDUCE-5744 a blocker for 2.3. Committing it shortly. > Will > > pull it out of branch-2.3 if anyone objects. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Arpit Agarwal > >wrote: > > > > > Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Arpit Agarwal < > aagar...@hortonworks.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. > > > > > > > > I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur < > t...@cloudera.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a very > odd > > > >> ways > > > >> (to the point it seems un-deterministic). > > > >> > > > >> I'd say eiher YARN-1577 is fixed or we revert > > > >> YARN-1493/YARN-1490/YARN-1166/YARN-1041/YARN-1566 (almost clean > > reverts) > > > >> from Hadoop 2.3 branch before doing the release. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I've verified that after reverting those JIRAs things work fine with > > > >> unmanaged AMs. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Arun C Murthy > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I punted YARN-1444 to 2.4 since it's a long-standing issue. > > > >> > > > > >> > Jian is away and I don't see YARN-1577 & YARN-1206 making much > > > progress > > > >> > till he is back; so I'm inclined to push both to 2.4 too. Any > > > >> objections? > > > >> > > > > >> > Looks like Daryn has both HADOOP-10301 & HDFS-4564 covered. > > > >> > > > > >> > Overall, I'll try get this out in next couple of days if we can > > clear > > > >> the > > > >> > list. > > > >> > > > > >> > thanks, > > > >> > Arun > > > >> > > > > >> > On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Arun C Murthy > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > An update. Per https://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers we > are > > > now > > > >> > down to 5 blockers: 1 Common, 1 HDFS, 3 YARN. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Daryn (thanks!) has both the non-YARN covered. Vinod is helping > > out > > > >> with > > > >> > the YARN ones. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > thanks, > > > >> > > Arun > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Arun C. Murthy > > > >> > Hortonworks Inc. > > > >> > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > >> > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > > > >> entity to > > > >> > which it is addressed and may contain information that is > > > confidential, > > > >> > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > > > >> reader > > > >> > of this message is not the
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Merged HADOOP-10273 to branch-2.3 as r1565456. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote: > IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. > > I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > >> IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a very odd >> ways >> (to the point it seems un-deterministic). >> >> I'd say eiher YARN-1577 is fixed or we revert >> YARN-1493/YARN-1490/YARN-1166/YARN-1041/YARN-1566 (almost clean reverts) >> from Hadoop 2.3 branch before doing the release. >> >> >> I've verified that after reverting those JIRAs things work fine with >> unmanaged AMs. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Arun C Murthy >> wrote: >> >> > I punted YARN-1444 to 2.4 since it's a long-standing issue. >> > >> > Jian is away and I don't see YARN-1577 & YARN-1206 making much progress >> > till he is back; so I'm inclined to push both to 2.4 too. Any >> objections? >> > >> > Looks like Daryn has both HADOOP-10301 & HDFS-4564 covered. >> > >> > Overall, I'll try get this out in next couple of days if we can clear >> the >> > list. >> > >> > thanks, >> > Arun >> > >> > On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> > >> > > An update. Per https://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers we are now >> > down to 5 blockers: 1 Common, 1 HDFS, 3 YARN. >> > > >> > > Daryn (thanks!) has both the non-YARN covered. Vinod is helping out >> with >> > the YARN ones. >> > > >> > > thanks, >> > > Arun >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > Arun C. Murthy >> > Hortonworks Inc. >> > http://hortonworks.com/ >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >> > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or >> entity to >> > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, >> > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the >> reader >> > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified >> that >> > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or >> > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have >> > received this communication in error, please contact the sender >> immediately >> > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Alejandro >> > > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
IMO HADOOP-10273 (Fix 'mvn site') should be included in 2.3. I will merge it to branch-2.3 tomorrow PST if no one disagrees. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a very odd ways > (to the point it seems un-deterministic). > > I'd say eiher YARN-1577 is fixed or we revert > YARN-1493/YARN-1490/YARN-1166/YARN-1041/YARN-1566 (almost clean reverts) > from Hadoop 2.3 branch before doing the release. > > > I've verified that after reverting those JIRAs things work fine with > unmanaged AMs. > > Thanks. > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Arun C Murthy > wrote: > > > I punted YARN-1444 to 2.4 since it's a long-standing issue. > > > > Jian is away and I don't see YARN-1577 & YARN-1206 making much progress > > till he is back; so I'm inclined to push both to 2.4 too. Any objections? > > > > Looks like Daryn has both HADOOP-10301 & HDFS-4564 covered. > > > > Overall, I'll try get this out in next couple of days if we can clear the > > list. > > > > thanks, > > Arun > > > > On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > > > > An update. Per https://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers we are now > > down to 5 blockers: 1 Common, 1 HDFS, 3 YARN. > > > > > > Daryn (thanks!) has both the non-YARN covered. Vinod is helping out > with > > the YARN ones. > > > > > > thanks, > > > Arun > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Arun C. Murthy > > Hortonworks Inc. > > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > > > -- > Alejandro > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
IMO YARN-1577 is a blocker, it is breaking unmanaged AMs in a very odd ways (to the point it seems un-deterministic). I'd say eiher YARN-1577 is fixed or we revert YARN-1493/YARN-1490/YARN-1166/YARN-1041/YARN-1566 (almost clean reverts) from Hadoop 2.3 branch before doing the release. I've verified that after reverting those JIRAs things work fine with unmanaged AMs. Thanks. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > I punted YARN-1444 to 2.4 since it's a long-standing issue. > > Jian is away and I don't see YARN-1577 & YARN-1206 making much progress > till he is back; so I'm inclined to push both to 2.4 too. Any objections? > > Looks like Daryn has both HADOOP-10301 & HDFS-4564 covered. > > Overall, I'll try get this out in next couple of days if we can clear the > list. > > thanks, > Arun > > On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > > An update. Per https://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers we are now > down to 5 blockers: 1 Common, 1 HDFS, 3 YARN. > > > > Daryn (thanks!) has both the non-YARN covered. Vinod is helping out with > the YARN ones. > > > > thanks, > > Arun > > > > > > > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > -- Alejandro
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I punted YARN-1444 to 2.4 since it's a long-standing issue. Jian is away and I don't see YARN-1577 & YARN-1206 making much progress till he is back; so I'm inclined to push both to 2.4 too. Any objections? Looks like Daryn has both HADOOP-10301 & HDFS-4564 covered. Overall, I'll try get this out in next couple of days if we can clear the list. thanks, Arun On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > An update. Per https://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers we are now down to > 5 blockers: 1 Common, 1 HDFS, 3 YARN. > > Daryn (thanks!) has both the non-YARN covered. Vinod is helping out with the > YARN ones. > > thanks, > Arun > > > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
An update. Per https://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers we are now down to 5 blockers: 1 Common, 1 HDFS, 3 YARN. Daryn (thanks!) has both the non-YARN covered. Vinod is helping out with the YARN ones. thanks, Arun -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
That's right. +Vinod On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > YARN-1673 IIUC relates to the AHS, so is actually only in branch-2 and not > branch-2.3. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Thanks for the link Arun, I went ahead and punted one HADOOP blocker, and the remaining two HADOOP/HDFS looks like they're under active review. Post-swizzle, it seems like most blockers for 2.4 would also apply to 2.3, so I looked at that list too: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326375&jql=project%20in%20(HADOOP%2C%20YARN%2C%20HDFS%2C%20MAPREDUCE)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22)%20AND%20%22Target%20Version%2Fs%22%20%3D%20%222.4.0%22 YARN-1673 IIUC relates to the AHS, so is actually only in branch-2 and not branch-2.3. HADOOP-10048, Jason's comment says he's okay with it not being a blocker. HDFS-5796 hasn't seen much action. Kihwal or Haohui, could you comment on the importance/status? I don't have much context in this area. Best, Andrew On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Thanks Vinod, appreciate it! > > I think we are very close. > > Here is a handy ref. to the list of blockers: > http://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers > > I'd appreciate if folks can help expedite these fixes, and, equally > importantly bring up others they feel should be blockers for 2.3.0. > > thanks, > Arun > > On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > > > That was quite some exercise, but I'm done with it now. Updated YARN's > and MAPREDUCE's CHANGES.txt on trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. Let me know > if you find some inaccuracies. > > > > Thanks, > > +Vinod > > > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > vino...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> Okay, I'll look at YARN and MR CHANGES.txt problems. Seems like they > aren't addressed yet. > >> > >> +Vinod > >> > >> > >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Andrew Wang > wrote: > >> > >>> I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common > >>> CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a > few > >>> JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was > 2.3 > >>> but weren't in branch-2.3. > >>> > >>> I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are > >>> these: > >>> > >>> HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi > and a > >>> doAs on a secure cluster > >>> HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode > and > >>> the corresponding byte value > >>> > >>> Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I > can > >>> just do it. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe > wrote: > > It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target > >>> version > > was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. > > Perhaps the version itself was renamed? > > Doug > >> > > > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Thanks Vinod, appreciate it! I think we are very close. Here is a handy ref. to the list of blockers: http://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.3.0-blockers I'd appreciate if folks can help expedite these fixes, and, equally importantly bring up others they feel should be blockers for 2.3.0. thanks, Arun On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > That was quite some exercise, but I'm done with it now. Updated YARN's and > MAPREDUCE's CHANGES.txt on trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. Let me know if you > find some inaccuracies. > > Thanks, > +Vinod > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > >> >> Okay, I'll look at YARN and MR CHANGES.txt problems. Seems like they aren't >> addressed yet. >> >> +Vinod >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: >> >>> I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common >>> CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a few >>> JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was 2.3 >>> but weren't in branch-2.3. >>> >>> I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are >>> these: >>> >>> HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi and a >>> doAs on a secure cluster >>> HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode and >>> the corresponding byte value >>> >>> Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I can >>> just do it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Andrew >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target >>> version > was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. Perhaps the version itself was renamed? Doug >> > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
That was quite some exercise, but I'm done with it now. Updated YARN's and MAPREDUCE's CHANGES.txt on trunk, branch-2 and branch-2.3. Let me know if you find some inaccuracies. Thanks, +Vinod On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > > Okay, I'll look at YARN and MR CHANGES.txt problems. Seems like they aren't > addressed yet. > > +Vinod > > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > >> I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common >> CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a few >> JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was 2.3 >> but weren't in branch-2.3. >> >> I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are >> these: >> >> HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi and a >> doAs on a secure cluster >> HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode and >> the corresponding byte value >> >> Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I can >> just do it. >> >> Thanks, >> Andrew >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target >> version was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. >>> >>> Perhaps the version itself was renamed? >>> >>> Doug > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I just committed HADOOP-10310 to branch-2.3, so we're good to go there. (Thanks to Andrew and Daryn for the prompt reviews.) -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > I just filed this JIRA as a blocker for 2.3: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10310 > > The tl;dr is that JNs will not work with security enabled without this > fix. If others don't think that supporting QJM with security enabled > warrants a blocker for 2.3, then we can certainly lower the priority, but > it seems pretty important to me. > > Best, > Aaron > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > >> I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common >> CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a few >> JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was 2.3 >> but weren't in branch-2.3. >> >> I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are >> these: >> >> HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi and a >> doAs on a secure cluster >> HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode and >> the corresponding byte value >> >> Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I can >> just do it. >> >> Thanks, >> Andrew >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe >> wrote: >> > > It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target >> version >> > > was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. >> > >> > Perhaps the version itself was renamed? >> > >> > Doug >> > >
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Okay, I'll look at YARN and MR CHANGES.txt problems. Seems like they aren't addressed yet. +Vinod On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common > CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a few > JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was 2.3 > but weren't in branch-2.3. > > I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are > these: > > HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi and a > doAs on a secure cluster > HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode and > the corresponding byte value > > Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I can > just do it. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: >>> It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target > version >>> was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. >> >> Perhaps the version itself was renamed? >> >> Doug -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5852 as a blocker. See what ye all think. Thanks, St.Ack On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > I just filed this JIRA as a blocker for 2.3: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10310 > > The tl;dr is that JNs will not work with security enabled without this fix. > If others don't think that supporting QJM with security enabled warrants a > blocker for 2.3, then we can certainly lower the priority, but it seems > pretty important to me. > > Best, > Aaron > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Wang >wrote: > > > I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common > > CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a few > > JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was 2.3 > > but weren't in branch-2.3. > > > > I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are > > these: > > > > HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi and a > > doAs on a secure cluster > > HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode and > > the corresponding byte value > > > > Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I can > > just do it. > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe > > wrote: > > > > It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target > > version > > > > was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. > > > > > > Perhaps the version itself was renamed? > > > > > > Doug > > >
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I just filed this JIRA as a blocker for 2.3: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10310 The tl;dr is that JNs will not work with security enabled without this fix. If others don't think that supporting QJM with security enabled warrants a blocker for 2.3, then we can certainly lower the priority, but it seems pretty important to me. Best, Aaron -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common > CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a few > JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was 2.3 > but weren't in branch-2.3. > > I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are > these: > > HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi and a > doAs on a secure cluster > HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode and > the corresponding byte value > > Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I can > just do it. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe > wrote: > > > It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target > version > > > was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. > > > > Perhaps the version itself was renamed? > > > > Doug >
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I just finished tuning up branch-2.3 and fixing up the HDFS and Common CHANGES.txt in trunk, branch-2, and branch-2.3. I had to merge back a few JIRAs committed between the swizzle and now where the fix version was 2.3 but weren't in branch-2.3. I think the only two HDFS and Common JIRAs that are marked for 2.4 are these: HDFS-5842 Cannot create hftp filesystem when using a proxy user ugi and a doAs on a secure cluster HDFS-5781 Use an array to record the mapping between FSEditLogOpCode and the corresponding byte value Jing, these both look safe to me if you want to merge them back, or I can just do it. Thanks, Andrew On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > > It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target version > > was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. > > Perhaps the version itself was renamed? > > Doug
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target version > was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. Perhaps the version itself was renamed? Doug
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
I noticed that somehow the target version field in JIRA was invisibly cleared on most of the Blocker/Critical JIRAs that were originally targeted for 2.3.0/2.4.0. I happened to have an old browser tab lying around from an earlier query for these and I tried to fix them up, marking some for 2.4.0 that IMHO weren't show-stoppers for the 2.3.0 release. It is a bit concerning that the JIRA history showed that the target version was set at some point in the past but no record of it being cleared. Jason On 01/29/2014 07:58 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: Mostly ready for a jira perspective. Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3. thanks, Arun On Jan 28, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: Fixing up stuff now, thanks to Andrew for volunteering to help with Common/HDFS. Arun On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: Sorry, missed this. Go ahead, I'll fix things up at the back end. Thanks. On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Sandy Ryza wrote: Going forward with commits because it seems like others have been doing so On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: We should hold off commits until that's done, right? On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: Yep, on it as we speak. :) Arun On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: Thanks, Arun. Are there plans to update the Fix Versions and CHANGES.txt accordingly? There are a lot of JIRAs that are now going to ship in 2.3.0 but the JIRA and CHANGES.txt says they're not fixed until 2.4.0. Jason On 01/27/2014 08:47 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: Done. I've re-created branch-2.3 from branch-2. thanks, Arun On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Arun Murthy wrote: Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. thanks, Arun -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Mostly ready for a jira perspective. Committers - Henceforth, please use extreme caution while committing to branch-2.3. Please commit *only* blockers to 2.3. thanks, Arun On Jan 28, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Fixing up stuff now, thanks to Andrew for volunteering to help with > Common/HDFS. > > Arun > > On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > >> Sorry, missed this. Go ahead, I'll fix things up at the back end. Thanks. >> >> On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Sandy Ryza wrote: >> >>> Going forward with commits because it seems like others have been doing so >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: >>> We should hold off commits until that's done, right? On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Yep, on it as we speak. :) > > > Arun > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > >> Thanks, Arun. Are there plans to update the Fix Versions and > CHANGES.txt accordingly? There are a lot of JIRAs that are now going to > ship in 2.3.0 but the JIRA and CHANGES.txt says they're not fixed until > 2.4.0. >> >> Jason >> >> On 01/27/2014 08:47 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >>> Done. I've re-created branch-2.3 from branch-2. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Arun >>> >>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Arun Murthy wrote: >>> Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. thanks, Arun >>> -- >>> Arun C. Murthy >>> Hortonworks Inc. >>> http://hortonworks.com/ >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > >> >> -- >> Arun C. Murthy >> Hortonworks Inc. >> http://hortonworks.com/ >> >> > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Fixing up stuff now, thanks to Andrew for volunteering to help with Common/HDFS. Arun On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Sorry, missed this. Go ahead, I'll fix things up at the back end. Thanks. > > On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > >> Going forward with commits because it seems like others have been doing so >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: >> >>> We should hold off commits until that's done, right? >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >>> Yep, on it as we speak. :) Arun On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > Thanks, Arun. Are there plans to update the Fix Versions and CHANGES.txt accordingly? There are a lot of JIRAs that are now going to ship in 2.3.0 but the JIRA and CHANGES.txt says they're not fixed until 2.4.0. > > Jason > > On 01/27/2014 08:47 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> Done. I've re-created branch-2.3 from branch-2. >> >> thanks, >> Arun >> >> On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Arun Murthy wrote: >> >>> Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 >>> off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are >>> Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). >>> >>> I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Arun >> -- >> Arun C. Murthy >> Hortonworks Inc. >> http://hortonworks.com/ >> >> >> > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. >>> >>> > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Sorry, missed this. Go ahead, I'll fix things up at the back end. Thanks. On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > Going forward with commits because it seems like others have been doing so > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > >> We should hold off commits until that's done, right? >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> >>> Yep, on it as we speak. :) >>> >>> >>> Arun >>> >>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: >>> Thanks, Arun. Are there plans to update the Fix Versions and >>> CHANGES.txt accordingly? There are a lot of JIRAs that are now going to >>> ship in 2.3.0 but the JIRA and CHANGES.txt says they're not fixed until >>> 2.4.0. Jason On 01/27/2014 08:47 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Done. I've re-created branch-2.3 from branch-2. > > thanks, > Arun > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Arun Murthy wrote: > >> Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 >> off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are >> Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). >> >> I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. >> >> thanks, >> Arun > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > >>> >>> -- >>> Arun C. Murthy >>> Hortonworks Inc. >>> http://hortonworks.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity >>> to >>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, >>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader >>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified >>> that >>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or >>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have >>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender >>> immediately >>> and delete it from your system. Thank You. >>> >> >> -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Yep, on it as we speak. :) Arun On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > Thanks, Arun. Are there plans to update the Fix Versions and CHANGES.txt > accordingly? There are a lot of JIRAs that are now going to ship in 2.3.0 > but the JIRA and CHANGES.txt says they're not fixed until 2.4.0. > > Jason > > On 01/27/2014 08:47 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> Done. I've re-created branch-2.3 from branch-2. >> >> thanks, >> Arun >> >> On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Arun Murthy wrote: >> >>> Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 >>> off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are >>> Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). >>> >>> I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Arun >> -- >> Arun C. Murthy >> Hortonworks Inc. >> http://hortonworks.com/ >> >> >> > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Thanks, Arun. Are there plans to update the Fix Versions and CHANGES.txt accordingly? There are a lot of JIRAs that are now going to ship in 2.3.0 but the JIRA and CHANGES.txt says they're not fixed until 2.4.0. Jason On 01/27/2014 08:47 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: Done. I've re-created branch-2.3 from branch-2. thanks, Arun On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Arun Murthy wrote: Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. thanks, Arun -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
Re: Re-swizzle 2.3
Done. I've re-created branch-2.3 from branch-2. thanks, Arun On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Arun Murthy wrote: > Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 > off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are > Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). > > I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. > > thanks, > Arun -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re-swizzle 2.3
Based on the discussion at common-dev@, we've decided to target 2.3 off the tip of branch-2 based on the 2 major HDFS features which are Heterogenous Storage (HDFS-2832) and HDFS Cache (HDFS-4949). I'll create a new branch-2.3 on (1/24) at 6pm PST. thanks, Arun -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
