Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: HADOOP-3317
Type: Improvement Improvement
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Minor Minor
Assignee: Doug Cutting
Reporter: Doug Cutting
Votes: 1
Watchers: 0
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
Hadoop Common

add default port for hdfs namenode

Created: 26/Apr/08 03:49 AM   Updated: 08/Jul/09 04:43 PM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 0.18.0

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

File Attachments:
  Size
Text File Licensed for inclusion in ASF works HADOOP-3317.patch 2008-05-05 09:30 PM Doug Cutting 34 kB
Text File Licensed for inclusion in ASF works HADOOP-3317.patch 2008-05-02 06:09 PM Doug Cutting 34 kB
Text File Licensed for inclusion in ASF works HADOOP-3317.patch 2008-05-01 06:38 PM Doug Cutting 31 kB
Text File Licensed for inclusion in ASF works HADOOP-3317.patch 2008-04-30 10:13 PM Doug Cutting 8 kB
Issue Links:
Reference
 

Hadoop Flags: Reviewed, Incompatible change
Release Note: Changed the default port for "hdfs:" URIs to be 8020, so that one may simply use URIs of the form "hdfs://example.com/dir/file".
Resolution Date: 06/May/08 11:23 PM


 Description  « Hide
Perhaps we should add a default port number for the HDFS namenode. This would simplify URIs. Instead of hdfs://host.net:9999/foo/bar folks would be able to just use hdfs://host.net/foo/bar in most cases. Thoughts?

 All   Comments   Work Log   Change History   Subversion Commits      Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Doug Cutting added a comment - 26/Apr/08 03:50 AM
In case I wasn't clear, this would be analogous to port 80 as the default port for HTTP.

Owen O'Malley added a comment - 26/Apr/08 04:07 PM
+1

Doug Cutting added a comment - 30/Apr/08 10:13 PM
Here's an implementation of this, using the default port of 8020.

Is 8020 a good default port for namenodes? That's what's used within Y!, but http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers shows it assigned to some Intuit protocol. Do we care?


Steve Loughran added a comment - 01/May/08 09:15 AM
SANS doesnt list 8020 as a port used by popular malware, that being something you want to avoid unless you want to upset your network security team
http://www.sans.org/resources/idfaq/oddports.php

Doug Cutting added a comment - 01/May/08 06:38 PM
New patch that updates documentation accordingly.

Hadoop QA added a comment - 01/May/08 08:08 PM
+1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12381261/HADOOP-3317.patch
against trunk revision 645773.

@author +1. The patch does not contain any @author tags.

tests included +1. The patch appears to include 3 new or modified tests.

javadoc +1. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.

javac +1. The applied patch does not generate any new javac compiler warnings.

release audit +1. The applied patch does not generate any new release audit warnings.

findbugs +1. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs warnings.

core tests +1. The patch passed core unit tests.

contrib tests +1. The patch passed contrib unit tests.

Test results: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2357/testReport/
Findbugs warnings: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2357/artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Checkstyle results: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2357/artifact/trunk/build/test/checkstyle-errors.html
Console output: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2357/console

This message is automatically generated.


Owen O'Malley added a comment - 01/May/08 10:38 PM
I'm not wild about adding things that are local to the NameNode into FSConstants. (Actually, the idiom of FSConstants, which just provides constants via inheritance is considered an anti-pattern...) A static final in NameNode would be better, but it is a nit.

The bigger problem is that you don't have any unit tests. You can't do a system test, because we don't allow fixed ports in the unit tests, but you can parse the string and get the uri.

The static method NameNode.getUri is passed a NameNode and therefore shouldn't be static.


Doug Cutting added a comment - 02/May/08 06:09 PM
> A static final in NameNode would be better, but it is a nit.

Good idea. I moved the constant to NameNode.

> The bigger problem is that you don't have any unit tests

Good point. I've added some unit tests.

> The static method NameNode.getUri is passed a NameNode and therefore shouldn't be static.

The parameter is named "namenode" but it's an InetSocketAddress.


Hadoop QA added a comment - 03/May/08 06:22 AM
-1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12381328/HADOOP-3317.patch
against trunk revision 645773.

@author +1. The patch does not contain any @author tags.

tests included +1. The patch appears to include 6 new or modified tests.

javadoc +1. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.

javac +1. The applied patch does not generate any new javac compiler warnings.

release audit +1. The applied patch does not generate any new release audit warnings.

findbugs -1. The patch appears to introduce 1 new Findbugs warnings.

core tests +1. The patch passed core unit tests.

contrib tests +1. The patch passed contrib unit tests.

Test results: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2369/testReport/
Findbugs warnings: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2369/artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Checkstyle results: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2369/artifact/trunk/build/test/checkstyle-errors.html
Console output: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2369/console

This message is automatically generated.


Doug Cutting added a comment - 05/May/08 09:29 PM
Doh! Forgot to make the constant final...

Hadoop QA added a comment - 06/May/08 12:11 AM
+1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12381448/HADOOP-3317.patch
against trunk revision 653611.

+1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags.

+1 tests included. The patch appears to include 6 new or modified tests.

+1 javadoc. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.

+1 javac. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac compiler warnings.

+1 findbugs. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs warnings.

+1 release audit. The applied patch does not increase the total number of release audit warnings.

+1 core tests. The patch passed core unit tests.

+1 contrib tests. The patch passed contrib unit tests.

Test results: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2400/testReport/
Findbugs warnings: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2400/artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Checkstyle results: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2400/artifact/trunk/build/test/checkstyle-errors.html
Console output: http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Hadoop-Patch/2400/console

This message is automatically generated.


Owen O'Malley added a comment - 06/May/08 10:38 PM
+1

Hudson added a comment - 07/May/08 12:22 PM

Hudson added a comment - 03/Jul/08 12:35 PM