+1 Cristian
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Cosmin Lehene wrote: > +1 > > Cosmin > > > On 12/15/09 10:44 AM, "Lars George" <lars.geo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
