I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion. I’ve 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 wouldn’t object.
--Chris Nauroth
On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <vinayakumar...@huawei.com> 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: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
