Ah yes, this was indeed intended to have been taken care of <https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/3a8b698e961ac05d9d53e2bbf0c2844fcb1010d1> :
add some new APIs with a flag for users to define whether he/she wants to > overwrite the directory: if the flag is set to true, *then the output > directory is deleted first* and then written into the new data to prevent > the output directory contains results from multiple rounds of running; On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I made the PR, the problem is …after many rounds of review, that > configuration part is missed….sorry about that > > I will fix it > > Best, > > -- > Nan Zhu > > On Monday, June 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Pierre Borckmans wrote: > > I'm a bit confused because the PR mentioned by Patrick seems to adress all > these issues: > > https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/3a8b698e961ac05d9d53e2bbf0c2844fcb1010d1 > > Was it not accepted? Or is the description of this PR not completely > implemented? > > Message sent from a mobile device - excuse typos and abbreviations > > Le 2 juin 2014 à 23:08, Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > OK, thanks for confirming. Is there something we can do about that > leftover part- files problem in Spark, or is that for the Hadoop team? > > > 2014년 6월 2일 월요일, Aaron Davidson<ilike...@gmail.com>님이 작성한 메시지: > > Yes. > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Nicholas Chammas < > nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So in summary: > > - As of Spark 1.0.0, saveAsTextFile() will no longer clobber by > default. > - There is an open JIRA issue to add an option to allow clobbering. > - Even when clobbering, part- files may be left over from previous > saves, which is dangerous. > > Is this correct? > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Aaron Davidson <ilike...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 please re-add this feature > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks for pointing that out. I've assigned you to SPARK-1677 (I think > I accidentally assigned myself way back when I created it). This > should be an easy fix. > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, Patrick, > > > > I think https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1677 is talking > about > > the same thing? > > > > How about assigning it to me? > > > > I think I missed the configuration part in my previous commit, though I > > declared that in the PR description.... > > > > Best, > > > > -- > > Nan Zhu > > > > On Monday, June 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Patrick Wendell wrote: > > > > Hey There, > > > > The issue was that the old behavior could cause users to silently > > overwrite data, which is pretty bad, so to be conservative we decided > > to enforce the same checks that Hadoop does. > > > > This was documented by this JIRA: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1100 > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/3a8b698e961ac05d9d53e2bbf0c2844fcb1010d1 > > > > However, it would be very easy to add an option that allows preserving > > the old behavior. Is anyone here interested in contributing that? I > > created a JIRA for it: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1993 > > > > - Patrick > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Pierre Borckmans > > <pierre.borckm...@realimpactanalytics.com> wrote: > > > > Indeed, the behavior has changed for good or for bad. I mean, I agree > with > > the danger you mention but I'm not sure it's happening like that. Isn't > > there a mechanism for overwrite in Hadoop that automatically removes part > > files, then writes a _temporary folder and then only the part files along > > with the _success folder. > > > > In any case this change of behavior should be documented IMO. > > > > Cheers > > Pierre > > > > Message sent from a mobile device - excuse typos and abbreviations > > > > Le 2 juin 2014 à 17:42, Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > > > > What I've found using saveAsTextFile() against S3 (prior to Spark > 1.0.0.) is > > that files get overwritten automatically. This is one danger to this > though. > > If I save to a directory that already has 20 part- files, but this time > > around I'm only saving 15 part- files, then there will be 5 leftover > part- > > files from the previous set mixed in with the 15 newer files. This is > > potentially dangerous. > > > > I haven't checked to see if this behavior has changed in 1.0.0. Are you > > >
