+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
>
