on tasks in Phase I, we would label them with "erasure
>> coding" and maybe also set the target version as "2.9" for the convenience?
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Jing Zhao [mailto:ji...@apache.org]
>> >> Sent: Tu
> coding" and maybe also set the target version as "2.9" for the convenience?
> >>
> >> -Original Message-----
> >> From: Jing Zhao [mailto:ji...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:04 AM
> >> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apach
.@apache.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:04 AM
>> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-7285
>> (erasure coding) branch to trunk]
>>
>> +1 for the plan about Phase I & II.
>>
I don't really see the difference between 2.9 with a ton of scary changes
(EC is a lot more NN stuff than a usual release) and a 3.0.
What's the downside of getting a major version. It relaxes the compat a
little bit. It would allow some bake time before it's stable.
Put another way. I'm upgradin
Yes we can mostly likely help you. Please come over to dev@bigtop.
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Andrew Wang wrote:
>
> We used to get help from Bigtop when it comes to integration testing. Do we
> think that's possible for 2.8?
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Steve Loughran
> wrote:
>
We used to get help from Bigtop when it comes to integration testing. Do we
think that's possible for 2.8?
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Steve Loughran
wrote:
>
> > On 2 Nov 2015, at 23:11, Vinod Vavilapalli
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I’ve already started looking at 2.8.0, that is exactly how I e
> On 2 Nov 2015, at 23:11, Vinod Vavilapalli wrote:
>
> Yes, I’ve already started looking at 2.8.0, that is exactly how I ended up
> with this discussion on the state of EC.
>
> +Vinod
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Haohui Mai
> mailto:ricet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Is it a good time t
t; be deployed in a production system. Phase II to develop non-striping
> >>> EC for cold data would possibly
> >> be
> >>> started after that. We might consider to include only Phase I and
> >>> leave Phase II for next release according to the rough release date.
> >>&g
, 2015 8:04 AM
> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-7285
> (erasure coding) branch to trunk]
>
> +1 for the plan about Phase I & II.
>
> BTW, maybe out of the scope of this thread, just want to mention we sho
: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-7285
(erasure coding) branch to trunk]
If we use an umbrella JIRA to categorize all the ongoing EC work, that will let
us more easily change the target version later. For instance, if we decide to
bump
; -Original Message-
> From: Jing Zhao [mailto:ji...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:04 AM
> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-7285
> (erasure coding) branch to trunk]
>
> +1 for the pla
..@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:04 AM
To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-7285
(erasure coding) branch to trunk]
+1 for the plan about Phase I & II.
BTW, maybe out of the scope of this thread, just want to mention we
...@intel.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 5:41 AM
> > To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-7285
> > (erasure coding) branch to trunk]
> >
> > +1 for EC to go into 2.9. Yes, 3.x woul
ugh release date.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.ganguma...@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 5:41 AM
> To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-72
nguma...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 5:41 AM
To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Erasure coding in branch-2 [Was Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-7285
(erasure coding) branch to trunk]
+1 for EC to go into 2.9. Yes, 3.x would be long way to go when we plan
+to
have 2.8 and 2.9 rel
Yes, I’ve already started looking at 2.8.0, that is exactly how I ended up with
this discussion on the state of EC.
+Vinod
On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Haohui Mai
mailto:ricet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Is it a good time to start the discussion on the issues of releasing 2.8?
+1 on putting EC on 2.9.
Is it a good time to start the discussion on the issues of releasing 2.8?
~Haohui
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Gangumalla, Uma
wrote:
> +1 for EC to go into 2.9. Yes, 3.x would be long way to go when we plan to
> have 2.8 and 2.9 releases.
>
> Regards,
> Uma
>
> On 1
+1 for EC to go into 2.9. Yes, 3.x would be long way to go when we plan to
have 2.8 and 2.9 releases.
Regards,
Uma
On 11/2/15, 11:49 AM, "Vinod Vavilapalli" wrote:
>Forking the thread. Started looking at the 2.8 list, various features¹
>status and arrived here.
>
>While I understand the pervasi
Thanks Vinod for the proposal and Andrew/Jing for the comments. 2.9 sounds
a good plan. As Andrew pointed out, 2.8 is already quite big. And even when
disabled, EC logic has been baked in NN pretty deeply.
Do we have a tentative date or estimate for 2.9?
---
Zhe Zhang
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:22
Thanks for the discussion, Vinod and Andrew. Backporting EC to 2.9 sounds
good to me.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Wang
wrote:
> Thanks for forking the thread Vinod,
>
> SGTM, though I really do recommend waiting for 2.9 given the current size
> of 2.8. I'm not a fan of an "off by def
Thanks for forking the thread Vinod,
SGTM, though I really do recommend waiting for 2.9 given the current size
of 2.8. I'm not a fan of an "off by default" half-measure, since it doesn't
change our compatibility requirements, and there's some major NN surgery
that can't really be disabled.
If we
Forking the thread. Started looking at the 2.8 list, various features’ status
and arrived here.
While I understand the pervasive nature of EC and a need for a significant
bake-in, moving this to a 3.x release is not a good idea. We will surely get a
2.8 out this year and, as needed, I can even
22 matches
Mail list logo
