better if this issue is fixed.
>
>
>
> _
>
> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:tdunn...@maprtech.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:18 PM
> To: gok...@huawei.com
> Cc: common-user@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-u...@hadoop.apache.org;
> dhr...@gmail.com
> Subjec
dfs-u...@hadoop.apache.org;
dhr...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: hadoop 0.20 append - some clarifications
HDFS definitely doesn't follow anything like POSIX file semantics.
They may be a vague inspiration for what HDFS does, but generally the
behavior of HDFS is not tightly specified. Even the unit tests
ira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-12663958
> --
>
> *From:* Ted Dunning [mailto:tdunn...@maprtech.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 11, 2011 2:14 PM
> *To:* common-user@hadoop.apache.org; gok...@huawei.com
> *Cc:* hdfs-u...@hadoop.apache.org; dhr...@gmail.com
>
ilto:tdunn...@maprtech.com]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 2:14 PM
To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org; gok...@huawei.com
Cc: hdfs-u...@hadoop.apache.org; dhr...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: hadoop 0.20 append - some clarifications
I think that in general, the behavior of any program reading data from an
mmon-user@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-u...@hadoop.apache.org;
c...@boudnik.org
Subject: Re: hadoop 0.20 append - some clarifications
It is a bit confusing.
SequenceFile.Writer#sync isn't really sync.
There is SequenceFile.Writer#syncFs which is more what you might expect to
be sync.
Then there is HADO
Dunning [mailto:tdunn...@maprtech.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:04 AM
> To: gok...@huawei.com
> Cc: common-user@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-u...@hadoop.apache.org;
> c...@boudnik.org
> Subject: Re: hadoop 0.20 append - some clarifications
>
>
>
> It is a bit co
-u...@hadoop.apache.org;
c...@boudnik.org
Subject: Re: hadoop 0.20 append - some clarifications
It is a bit confusing.
SequenceFile.Writer#sync isn't really sync.
There is SequenceFile.Writer#syncFs which is more what you might expect to
be sync.
Then there is HADOOP-6313
is successful.
>
> *Is this a bug that needs to be handled in append branch?*
>
>
>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Konstantin Boudnik [mailto:c...@boudnik.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:09 AM
> >>To: common-user@hadoop.apach
February 11, 2011 4:09 AM
>>To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: hadoop 0.20 append - some clarifications
>> You might also want to check append design doc published at HDFS-265
I was asking about the hadoop 0.20 append branch. I suppose HDFS-265's
d
You might also want to check append design doc published at HDFS-265
--
Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:11, Gokulakannan M wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have run the hadoop 0.20 append branch . Can someone please clarify the
> following behavior?
>
> A writer writing
Correct is a strong word here.
There is actually an HDFS unit test that checks to see if partially written
and unflushed data is visible. The basic rule of thumb is that you need to
synchronize readers and writers outside of HDFS. There is no guarantee that
data is visible or invisible after wri
Hi All,
I have run the hadoop 0.20 append branch . Can someone please clarify the
following behavior?
A writer writing a file but he has not flushed the data and not closed the
file. Could a parallel reader read this partial file?
For example,
1. a writer is writing a 10MB file(block size 2 MB
12 matches
Mail list logo
