In 2.0 we've reimplemented the shuffle using Netty for a significant speed up.
Moving webhdfs to Netty would be interesting.
-- Owen
On Jul 11, 2012, at 6:03, Robert Evans wrote:
> I am +1 on this also, although I think we need to look at moving to
> Jetty-7 or possibly dropping Jetty complet
I agree that we should explore alternatives the forked version of Jetty.
This is a longer term goal. In the interim, lets do jetty-6.1.26 + fixes.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
> I am +1 on this also, although I think we need to look at moving to
> Jetty-7 or possibly drop
I am +1 on this also, although I think we need to look at moving to
Jetty-7 or possibly dropping Jetty completely and look at Netty or even
Tomcat long term. Jetty has just been way too unstable at Hadoop scale
and that has not really changed with newer versions of Jetty. Sticking
with an old for
One question I did have on this is if anyone is now seeing more jetty issues
on the datanode with possibly increased usage via webhdfs - do we need
something similar to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3184 on
the datanode side?
Tom
On 7/10/12 5:19 PM, "Todd Lipcon" wrote:
> +1
+1 from me too. We've had this in CDH since Sep '11 and been working
much better than the stock 6.1.26.
-Todd
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Graves wrote:
>
>> I'm +1 for adding it.
>>
>
> I'm +1 also.
>
> -- Owen
--
Todd Lipco
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Graves wrote:
> I'm +1 for adding it.
>
I'm +1 also.
-- Owen
I'm +1 for adding it.
Tom
On 7/9/12 6:22 PM, "Suresh Srinivas" wrote:
> Many folks running Apache Hadoop releases run into Jetty related issues.
> Some fixes to Jetty alleviates this problem. See Todd's comment: See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2980?focusedCommentId=132911
