+1
I built it from source, and ran a job on a single node cluster. I did not run
any of the unit tests as this is still alpha quality.
--Bobby Evans
On 2/18/12 1:23 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I've created another release candidate for hadoop-0.23.1 that I would like to
Hi,
The IPC protocol buffer feature in trunk is complete. It is time to merge
0.23-PB back to 0.23. Lists of 0.23-PB issues which are not in 0.23 can be
found in the CHANGES.txt files in the 0.23-PB branch. I will merge it
tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any concern.
Regards,
Sounds great! +1 for merging. Would be good to get this into 0.23
branch as soon as possible.
Mahadev Konar
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
s29752-hadoopgene...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
The IPC protocol buffer feature in trunk
We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron Myers
for the kindly note.) Please check the branch and vote.
Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
From: Mahadev Konar maha...@hortonworks.com
To:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I've created another release candidate for hadoop-0.23.1 that I would like to
release.
It is available at: http://people.apache.org/~acmurthy/hadoop-0.23.1-rc2/
The hadoop-0.23.1-rc2 svn tag:
-1, unfortunately. HDFS-2991 is a blocker regression introduced in
0.23.1. See the JIRA for instructions on how to reproduce on the rc2
build.
-Todd
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I've created another release candidate for hadoop-0.23.1 that I would
Hey Nicholas,
Thank you for doing this! +1 for the merge.
I went through the delta between 0.23-PB and branch-23, and they look
good. I noticed some other changes from trunk not-PB related (eg
HDFS-395) were pulled in, and they were all stuff that were in my
list:
Roman,
you are compiling on 64 bit machines?
not only make it impossible to build the right version
of container executor without hand-editing the pom.xml,
The idea was to have 32 bit binary all the time, can you let us know
what issue you are facing. During the build itself?
but also make
Todd,
From your analysis at HDFS-2991, looks like this was there in 0.23
too. Also, seems this happens only at scale, and only (paraphrasing
you) when the file is reopened for append on an exact block
boundary.
Agree it is a critical fix, but given above, can we proceed along with
0.23.1?
Hey Arun,
I think HADOOP-8105 is also worth another RC. It's an incompatible
change that breaks a bunch of the Hive 0.8 tests.
Thanks,
Eli
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I've created another release candidate for hadoop-0.23.1 that I would like to
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
vino...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Roman,
you are compiling on 64 bit machines?
I'm compiling on both 32bit and 64bit architectures.
not only make it impossible to build the right version
of container executor without hand-editing the
Hey Arun,
Looks like this has already been fixed, apologies for the noise!
Thanks,
Eli
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
Hey Arun,
I think HADOOP-8105 is also worth another RC. It's an incompatible
change that breaks a bunch of the Hive 0.8 tests.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
vino...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Todd,
From your analysis at HDFS-2991, looks like this was there in 0.23
too. Also, seems this happens only at scale, and only (paraphrasing
you) when the file is reopened for append on an exact block
+1.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
s29752-hadoopgene...@yahoo.com wrote:
We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron
Myers for the kindly note.) Please check the branch and vote.
Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
Hortonworks Inc.
On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
Alright, consider me -0, though it's pretty nasty once you run into
it. The only way I could start my NN again without losing data was to
recompile with the fix in place.
Thanks Todd.
I'm thinking 23.1 has stewed long enough that we can get
+1, nice to see this go in to branch-0.23.
Given the discussion on the hadoop-0.23.1 voting thread, can I request the
fix-version for this to be 23.3? As I've mentioned there I'm thinking a 23.2 as
a small bug-fix release in a week or so with some critical fixes/enhancements -
this won't
+1 to that. I'd really like to see 0.23.1 get out sooner than later.
0.23.1 is a huge improvement over 0.23.0 and would really like to see
folks starting to play around with it!
Mahadev Konar
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Arun C Murthy
+1
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze
s29752-hadoopgene...@yahoo.com wrote:
We actually require to have a vote according to the bylaws (Thanks Aaron
Myers for the kindly note.) Please check the branch and vote.
Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze
Hortonworks Inc.
18 matches
Mail list logo
