If HDFS-630 is a blocker for hbase on small clusters, maybe we can target it for 0.21. Maybe you can run a VOTE for it?
thanks, dhruba On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM, stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > HDFS-630 is kinda critical to us over in hbase. We'd like to get it into > 0.21 (Its been committed to TRUNK). Its probably hard to argue its a > blocker for 0.21. We could run a vote. Or should we just file it against > 0.21.1 hdfs and commit it after 0.21 goes out? What would folks suggest? > > Without it, a node crash (datanode+regionserver) will bring down a second > regionserver, particularly if the cluster is small (See HBASE-1876 for > description of the play-by-play where NN keeps giving out dead DN as place > to locate new blocks). Since the bulk of hbase clusters are small -- > whether evaluations, test, or just small productions -- this issue is an > important fix for us. If the cluster is of 5 or less nodes, we'll probably > recover but there'll be a period of churn. At a minimum mapreduce jobs > running against the cluster will fail (usually some kind of bullk upload). > > St.Ack > -- Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
