+1 Lars
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>wrote: > +1 for 0.21.0 > > J-D > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > +1 > > > > > > 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 > >> > > > > > > >
