HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
apache
hadoop-common
Java2012–2014
apache / hadoop-common · Archived

hadoop-common

Mirror of Apache Hadoop common

2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
162GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Mirror of Apache Hadoop common

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2012-07-05 19:40:58 UTC to 2014-02-02 22:35:47 UTC.

012012-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJul 20122012-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsApr 20132013-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsFeb 2014

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 20122012-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-08-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Aug 20122012-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20122012-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20122012-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20122012-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20122012-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20132013-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20132013-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20132013-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20132013-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20132013-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20132013-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20132013-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20132013-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20132013-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20132013-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20132013-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20142014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
You need to take the effect of the page cache into account. Since you are not clearing the page cache after each test, the test after it benefits from the contents. So running 'git grep' first disadvantages it, compared to everything else. I ran a test on a large repository and here are my results. The repository was Hadoop, and is available from git://github.com/apache/hadoop-common.git. cmccabe@keter:~/hadoop4> du -cksh . 375M . 375M total sudo -- sh -c 'sync ; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' cmccabe@keter:~/hadoop4> /usr/bin/time git grep 'class TestDefaultNameNodePort' hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/TestDefaultNameNodePort.java:public class TestDefaultNameNodePort { 0.11user 0.34system 0:00.74el
Read the rest
apsed 61%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 60512maxresident)k 260256inputs+0outputs (19major+9718minor)pagefaults 0swaps sudo -- sh -c 'sync ; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' cmccabe@keter:~/hadoop4> /usr/bin/time grep -rI --exclude .git 'class TestDefaultNameNodePort' * hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/TestDefaultNameNodePort.java:public class TestDefaultNameNodePort { 0.13user 0.56system 0:02.40elapsed 29%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 5584maxresident)k 252792inputs+0outputs (2major+414minor)pagefaults 0swaps So you can see that it is faster, even when excluding the .git directory. Running grep a second time without clearing the cache gives a bogus result: cmccabe@keter:~/hadoop4> /usr/bin/time grep -rI --exclude .git 'class TestDefaultNameNodePort' * hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/TestDefaultNameNodePort.java:public class TestDefaultNameNodePort { 0.03user 0.04system 0:00.08elapsed 97%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 5584maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+416minor)pagefaults 0swaps This is because the data is all in the page cache at that point, so we're not actually accessing the disk. I was curious about the true source of the speedup, and so I checked the output of the 'perf' tool. git had 1,922 CPU migrations, whereas grep had 52. Following up on this, you can see that git is spawning a bunch of threads, whereas grep only has one thread. cmccabe@keter:~/hadoop4> strace -f -e trace=clone git grep 'class TestDefaultNameNodePort' 2>&1 | grep -c '] +++ exited with ' 8 cmccabe@keter:~/hadoop4> strace -f -e trace=clone grep -rI --exclude=.git 'class TestDefaultNameNodePort' * 2>&1 | grep -c '] +++ exited with ' 0 I also think git might be cheating and using a simpler regex engine than grep, but at this point I got bored. Case closed.
In Git tips from the trenches
Is the unsafe version doing bounds-checking? I imagine de-serializing is much faster without branching, although probably not a great idea. Hadoop's IPC protocol does something similar to what this article describes. They roll their own serialization format[0] and write to a wrapped ByteArrayOutputStream[1]. [0]: Example of a serialized object: https://github.com/apache/hadoop-common/blob/fdf697eebc95cbb... [1]: https://github.com/apache/hadoop-common/blob/fdf697eebc95cbb...
In Native C/C++ Like Performance For Java Object Serialisation

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.