+1
From: Brahma Reddy Battula <[email protected]>
To: "Gangumalla, Uma" <[email protected]>; Rakesh Radhakrishnan
<[email protected]>; Sijie Guo <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Uma gangumalla
<[email protected]>; Vinayakumar B <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:21 AM
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?
Yes, We can remove from trunk and can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed
with all the existing customers on this..
--Brahma Reddy Battula
-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: [email protected]; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?
For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM
stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should
know more than me as I left that employer while ago.
If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.
Regards,
Uma
On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was
>>using it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth
>><[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > added their user@ and dev@ lists to this thread.
>> >
>> > I do not see BKJM being used in practice. Removing it from trunk
>>would
>> be
>> > attractive in terms of less code for Hadoop to maintain and build,
>>but if
>> > we find existing users that want to keep it, I wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > BKJM was Active and made much stable when the NameNode HA
>> > was implemented and there was no QJM implemented.
>> > Now QJM is present and is much stable which is adopted by
>> > many production environment.
>> > I wonder whether it would be a good time to retire BKJM from
>> trunk?
>> >
>> > Are there any users of BKJM exists?
>> >
>> > -Vinay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
