[DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Vinayakumar B-4

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Chris Nauroth
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" <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Sijie Guo
+ Rakesh and Uma

Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.

- Sijie

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <[hidden email]> wrote:
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" <[hidden email]> 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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Rakesh Radhakrishnan-2
If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope @Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from the trunk code.

Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira, which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?

Thanks,
Rakesh
Intel

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <[hidden email]> wrote:
+ Rakesh and Uma

Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was using
it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.

- Sijie

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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" <[hidden email]> 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
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Brahma Reddy

Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: [hidden email]; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth
>><[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > 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 wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <[hidden email]>
>>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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

Kihwal Lee-2
+1



From: Brahma Reddy Battula <[hidden email]>
To: "Gangumalla, Uma" <[hidden email]>; Rakesh Radhakrishnan <[hidden email]>; Sijie Guo <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>; Uma gangumalla <[hidden email]>; Vinayakumar B <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:21 AM
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?


Yes, We can remove from trunk and  can be deprecated in branch-2. We confirmed with all the existing customers on this..


--Brahma Reddy Battula



-----Original Message-----
From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 28 July 2016 13:22
To: Rakesh Radhakrishnan; Sijie Guo
Cc: [hidden email]; Uma gangumalla; Vinayakumar B; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Retire BKJM from trunk?

For Huawei, Vinay/Brahma should know about their usage. I think after QJM stabilized and ready they also adopted to QJM is what I know, but they should know more than me as I left that employer while ago.

If no one is using it, It is ok to remove.

Regards,
Uma

On 7/27/16, 9:49 PM, "Rakesh Radhakrishnan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, Huawei also adopted QJM component. I hope
>@Vinay might have discussed internally in Huawei before starting this
>e-mail discussion thread. I'm +1, for removing the bkjm contrib from
>the trunk code.
>
>Also, there are quite few open sub-tasks under HDFS-3399 umbrella jira,
>which was used for the BKJM implementation time. How about closing
>these jira by marking as "Won't Fix"?
>
>Thanks,
>Rakesh
>Intel
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Sijie Guo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> + Rakesh and Uma
>>
>> Rakesh and Uma might have a better idea on this. I think Huawei was
>>using  it when Rakesh and Uma worked there.
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Chris Nauroth
>><[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I recommend including the BookKeeper community in this discussion.
>>I¹ve
>> > 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 wouldn¹t object.
>> >
>> > --Chris Nauroth
>> >
>> > On 7/26/16, 11:14 PM, "Vinayakumar B" <[hidden email]>
>>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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]