You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Stack <st...@duboce.net> on 2011/12/23 01:22:04 UTC
ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download:
http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.0-candidate-2/
I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
This RC bundles hadoop 1.0.0rc3 and zookeeper 3.4.2rc0.
As said previous, HBase 0.92.0 includes a raft of new features
including: coprocessors, security, a new (self-migrating) file format,
distributed log splitting, etc. There's been > 600 fixes since 0.90.
See the list here: http://su.pr/1VZzl5
See the hbase manual for the low-down on what hadoop version this
release will run on: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
There is no migration necessary. A shutdown and restart after putting
in place the new HBase should be all thats involved (A rolling restart
from 0.90.x to 0.92.0 will not work). That said, once you have moved
to 0.92.x, there is no going back to 0.90.x after the transition has
been made.
Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.0? Take it for a spin.
Check out the doc. Vote +1/-1 by January 3rd, 2012.
Happy Holidays.
Yours,
The HBasistas
P.S. If you are thinking of going to 0.92 anytime soon, help us out w/
the testing if you can. This period while we are putting up release
candidates is the best time for trying stuff out because if you find
an ugly bug, it'll be fixed pretty tout de suite
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
> Now that both Hadoop 1.0 and ZK 3.4.2 have been released I think we
> should ship with them.
+1
> Apart from that I'm +1. I even let a LoadTester job run on my 15 nodes
> during the holidays (287 hours now) and it's still crushing my cluster
> as much as it did in the beginning without any failure.
+1 too, I had a secure test cluster up over the holiday and it was fine until HDFS was ~95% full. :-)
I may have found an issue with how scanner leases are removed and reinstalled in next() with very large regions and slow servers (EC2...) but I haven't been able to recreate the circumstances so don't feel I understand it sufficiently, and anyway this was something seen in a crazy test case.
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
>
> Now that both Hadoop 1.0 and ZK 3.4.2 have been released I think we
> should ship with them.
>
> Apart from that I'm +1. I even let a LoadTester job run on my 15 nodes
> during the holidays (287 hours now) and it's still crushing my cluster
> as much as it did in the beginning without any failure.
>
> J-D
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.0-candidate-2/
>>
>> I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
>>
>> This RC bundles hadoop 1.0.0rc3 and zookeeper 3.4.2rc0.
>>
>> As said previous, HBase 0.92.0 includes a raft of new features
>> including: coprocessors, security, a new (self-migrating) file format,
>> distributed log splitting, etc. There's been > 600 fixes since
> 0.90.
>> See the list here: http://su.pr/1VZzl5
>>
>> See the hbase manual for the low-down on what hadoop version this
>> release will run on: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
>>
>> There is no migration necessary. A shutdown and restart after putting
>> in place the new HBase should be all thats involved (A rolling restart
>> from 0.90.x to 0.92.0 will not work). That said, once you have moved
>> to 0.92.x, there is no going back to 0.90.x after the transition has
>> been made.
>>
>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.0? Take it for a spin.
>> Check out the doc. Vote +1/-1 by January 3rd, 2012.
>>
>> Happy Holidays.
>> Yours,
>> The HBasistas
>>
>> P.S. If you are thinking of going to 0.92 anytime soon, help us out w/
>> the testing if you can. This period while we are putting up release
>> candidates is the best time for trying stuff out because if you find
>> an ugly bug, it'll be fixed pretty tout de suite
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for
download
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
+1 On the Tips and Tricks section in Troubleshooting idea.
I'd like to keep the FAQ higher-level to point people to the right
chapters but not clutter it with too much detail.
On 1/3/12 11:34 PM, "lars hofhansl" <lh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If stuff gets stuck in transition we at least have decent
>> visibility and fix tools compared to what we had in 90.
>
>This brings me to another topic: We should document all these known
>problems and their fixes along with the relevant tools
>in the HBase Reference Guide
>(http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#trouble.tools.builtin)
>
>I would also like address recurring issues such as HBASE-5090 somewhere
>in the book. The FAQ section not seem
>quite the right place. Maybe a new Tips & Tricks section?
>
>-- Lars
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com>.
> If stuff gets stuck in transition we at least have decent
> visibility and fix tools compared to what we had in 90.
This brings me to another topic: We should document all these known problems and their fixes along with the relevant tools
in the HBase Reference Guide (http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#trouble.tools.builtin)
I would also like address recurring issues such as HBASE-5090 somewhere in the book. The FAQ section not seem
quite the right place. Maybe a new Tips & Tricks section?
-- Lars
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
>> even if we label it as an alpha initially for 0.92.0
With 0.90 stable release present, I doubt many people would want to try out
an alpha 0.92 release.
My feeling about 0.92 release is ambivalent. On the one hand, I want to see
the release of 0.92.0 since we have all put so much energy into it. On the
other hand, I would like 0.92.0 to reach Beta quality.
I suggest getting HBASE-5081 and HBASE-5120 into the next 0.92 RC.
Cheers
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Todd that we should cover the scenario where there're many
> > regions.
> >
> >>> we at least have decent visibility and fix tools compared to what we
> had
> > in 90.
> > We have better tools, yes.
> > Would they solve the known / potential problems ? I don't think we have
> > enough cases to prove that.
>
> Maybe not... but I don't think it's particularly worse off than 0.90.x
> in this regard either.
>
> I won't vote +1 on the release since I haven't had time to pound on it
> personally. But I generally think that we need to just get this thing
> out there, even if we label it as an alpha initially for 0.92.0, beta
> for 0.92.1, or whatever. Remember when we wanted to get 92 out for
> Hadoop World?
>
> -Todd
>
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I would also suggest a third option that seems like a stretch but
> >> > could be workable:
> >> >
> >> > - MAX_FILESIZE is 4x bigger so users are less likely to have a huge
> >> > number of regions (plus all our education), so the TM is less likely
> >> > to cause damage and could be very useful. What I mean is 5119 could be
> >> > committed but not 5120 for 0.92.0
> >> >
> >>
> >> That doesn't help the folks who will be upgrading from an existing
> >> cluster and still have too-many regions. We've got some merge hacks
> >> but nothing super-easy to use yet. So I think we have to expect that
> >> some folks will have lots of regions for a little while yet.
> >>
> >> Given that people have been testing w/o the TimeoutMonitor, I think we
> >> should leave these confs as they are in the current 92 rc and not futz
> >> too much. If stuff gets stuck in transition we at least have decent
> >> visibility and fix tools compared to what we had in 90.
> >>
> >> -Todd
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I cloned HBASE-5120 off of HBASE-5119 and marked it as a blocker.
> >> >> I think it shows that we may need to revisit HBASE-4015.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Shall we also address the scenario where timeout monitor and bulk
> >> disabler
> >> >>> race against the same region ?
> >> >>> See
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5119?focusedCommentId=13179176&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13179176
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>> > I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log
> >> >>>> splitting
> >> >>>> > that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it
> is
> >> >>>> going to
> >> >>>> > be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
> >> >>>> > blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our
> hadoop
> >> >>>> to the released 1.0.0).
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> St.Ack
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Todd Lipcon
> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Todd that we should cover the scenario where there're many
> regions.
>
>>> we at least have decent visibility and fix tools compared to what we had
> in 90.
> We have better tools, yes.
> Would they solve the known / potential problems ? I don't think we have
> enough cases to prove that.
Maybe not... but I don't think it's particularly worse off than 0.90.x
in this regard either.
I won't vote +1 on the release since I haven't had time to pound on it
personally. But I generally think that we need to just get this thing
out there, even if we label it as an alpha initially for 0.92.0, beta
for 0.92.1, or whatever. Remember when we wanted to get 92 out for
Hadoop World?
-Todd
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I would also suggest a third option that seems like a stretch but
>> > could be workable:
>> >
>> > - MAX_FILESIZE is 4x bigger so users are less likely to have a huge
>> > number of regions (plus all our education), so the TM is less likely
>> > to cause damage and could be very useful. What I mean is 5119 could be
>> > committed but not 5120 for 0.92.0
>> >
>>
>> That doesn't help the folks who will be upgrading from an existing
>> cluster and still have too-many regions. We've got some merge hacks
>> but nothing super-easy to use yet. So I think we have to expect that
>> some folks will have lots of regions for a little while yet.
>>
>> Given that people have been testing w/o the TimeoutMonitor, I think we
>> should leave these confs as they are in the current 92 rc and not futz
>> too much. If stuff gets stuck in transition we at least have decent
>> visibility and fix tools compared to what we had in 90.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I cloned HBASE-5120 off of HBASE-5119 and marked it as a blocker.
>> >> I think it shows that we may need to revisit HBASE-4015.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Shall we also address the scenario where timeout monitor and bulk
>> disabler
>> >>> race against the same region ?
>> >>> See
>> >>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5119?focusedCommentId=13179176&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13179176
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> > I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log
>> >>>> splitting
>> >>>> > that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is
>> >>>> going to
>> >>>> > be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
>> >>>> > blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our hadoop
>> >>>> to the released 1.0.0).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> St.Ack
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Todd that we should cover the scenario where there're many
regions.
>> we at least have decent visibility and fix tools compared to what we had
in 90.
We have better tools, yes.
Would they solve the known / potential problems ? I don't think we have
enough cases to prove that.
Cheers
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I would also suggest a third option that seems like a stretch but
> > could be workable:
> >
> > - MAX_FILESIZE is 4x bigger so users are less likely to have a huge
> > number of regions (plus all our education), so the TM is less likely
> > to cause damage and could be very useful. What I mean is 5119 could be
> > committed but not 5120 for 0.92.0
> >
>
> That doesn't help the folks who will be upgrading from an existing
> cluster and still have too-many regions. We've got some merge hacks
> but nothing super-easy to use yet. So I think we have to expect that
> some folks will have lots of regions for a little while yet.
>
> Given that people have been testing w/o the TimeoutMonitor, I think we
> should leave these confs as they are in the current 92 rc and not futz
> too much. If stuff gets stuck in transition we at least have decent
> visibility and fix tools compared to what we had in 90.
>
> -Todd
>
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I cloned HBASE-5120 off of HBASE-5119 and marked it as a blocker.
> >> I think it shows that we may need to revisit HBASE-4015.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Shall we also address the scenario where timeout monitor and bulk
> disabler
> >>> race against the same region ?
> >>> See
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5119?focusedCommentId=13179176&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13179176
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> > I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log
> >>>> splitting
> >>>> > that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is
> >>>> going to
> >>>> > be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
> >>>> > blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our hadoop
> >>>> to the released 1.0.0).
> >>>>
> >>>> St.Ack
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would also suggest a third option that seems like a stretch but
> could be workable:
>
> - MAX_FILESIZE is 4x bigger so users are less likely to have a huge
> number of regions (plus all our education), so the TM is less likely
> to cause damage and could be very useful. What I mean is 5119 could be
> committed but not 5120 for 0.92.0
>
That doesn't help the folks who will be upgrading from an existing
cluster and still have too-many regions. We've got some merge hacks
but nothing super-easy to use yet. So I think we have to expect that
some folks will have lots of regions for a little while yet.
Given that people have been testing w/o the TimeoutMonitor, I think we
should leave these confs as they are in the current 92 rc and not futz
too much. If stuff gets stuck in transition we at least have decent
visibility and fix tools compared to what we had in 90.
-Todd
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I cloned HBASE-5120 off of HBASE-5119 and marked it as a blocker.
>> I think it shows that we may need to revisit HBASE-4015.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shall we also address the scenario where timeout monitor and bulk disabler
>>> race against the same region ?
>>> See
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5119?focusedCommentId=13179176&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13179176
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>> > I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log
>>>> splitting
>>>> > that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
>>>> >
>>>> > If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is
>>>> going to
>>>> > be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
>>>> > blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our hadoop
>>>> to the released 1.0.0).
>>>>
>>>> St.Ack
>>>>
>>>
>>>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
I'm not convinced this should be a blocker, the TM is effectively
disabled in 0.90 and up until Ram brought back the subject it was
going to be the same in 0.92.0. HBASE-5120 happens only when you run
with the TM.
My opinion is that:
- If 5120 is easy to fix and there's no other obvious bug lurking in
the TM, we should get 5119/20 into 0.92.0
- If it's not, either punt to a later bug fix release or 0.94
I would also suggest a third option that seems like a stretch but
could be workable:
- MAX_FILESIZE is 4x bigger so users are less likely to have a huge
number of regions (plus all our education), so the TM is less likely
to cause damage and could be very useful. What I mean is 5119 could be
committed but not 5120 for 0.92.0
J-D
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I cloned HBASE-5120 off of HBASE-5119 and marked it as a blocker.
> I think it shows that we may need to revisit HBASE-4015.
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shall we also address the scenario where timeout monitor and bulk disabler
>> race against the same region ?
>> See
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5119?focusedCommentId=13179176&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13179176
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> > I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log
>>> splitting
>>> > that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
>>> >
>>> > If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is
>>> going to
>>> > be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
>>> > blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our hadoop
>>> to the released 1.0.0).
>>>
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>
>>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
I cloned HBASE-5120 off of HBASE-5119 and marked it as a blocker.
I think it shows that we may need to revisit HBASE-4015.
Regards
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shall we also address the scenario where timeout monitor and bulk disabler
> race against the same region ?
> See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5119?focusedCommentId=13179176&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13179176
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log
>> splitting
>> > that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
>> >
>> > If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is
>> going to
>> > be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
>> > blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
>> >
>>
>> I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our hadoop
>> to the released 1.0.0).
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Shall we also address the scenario where timeout monitor and bulk disabler
race against the same region ?
See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5119?focusedCommentId=13179176&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13179176
Cheers
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log splitting
> > that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
> >
> > If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is going
> to
> > be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
> > blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
> >
>
> I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our hadoop
> to the released 1.0.0).
>
> St.Ack
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log splitting
> that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
>
> If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is going to
> be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
> blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
>
I'll put up a new RC after HBASE-5081 goes in (I'll update our hadoop
to the released 1.0.0).
St.Ack
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
> I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log splitting
> that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
> If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1.
This seems reasonable.
It's going to take some time to shake out all the corner cases.
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
>
> I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log splitting
> that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
>
> If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is going to
> be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
> blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
>
> Jon.
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HBASE-5099, 5100 were integrated after this RC.
>> Also, Prakash has new patch for HBASE-5081.
>>
>> I think a new RC should be more appropriate for the first 0.92 release.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Now that both Hadoop 1.0 and ZK 3.4.2 have been released I think we
>> > should ship with them.
>> >
>> > Apart from that I'm +1. I even let a LoadTester job run on my 15
> nodes
>> > during the holidays (287 hours now) and it's still crushing my
> cluster
>> > as much as it did in the beginning without any failure.
>> >
>> > J-D
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> > > The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for
> download:
>> > >
>> > > http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.0-candidate-2/
>> > >
>> > > I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by
> jenkins.
>> > >
>> > > This RC bundles hadoop 1.0.0rc3 and zookeeper 3.4.2rc0.
>> > >
>> > > As said previous, HBase 0.92.0 includes a raft of new features
>> > > including: coprocessors, security, a new (self-migrating) file
> format,
>> > > distributed log splitting, etc. There's been > 600 fixes
> since 0.90.
>> > > See the list here: http://su.pr/1VZzl5
>> > >
>> > > See the hbase manual for the low-down on what hadoop version this
>> > > release will run on: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
>> > >
>> > > There is no migration necessary. A shutdown and restart after
> putting
>> > > in place the new HBase should be all thats involved (A rolling
> restart
>> > > from 0.90.x to 0.92.0 will not work). That said, once you have
> moved
>> > > to 0.92.x, there is no going back to 0.90.x after the transition
> has
>> > > been made.
>> > >
>> > > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.0? Take it for a
> spin.
>> > > Check out the doc. Vote +1/-1 by January 3rd, 2012.
>> > >
>> > > Happy Holidays.
>> > > Yours,
>> > > The HBasistas
>> > >
>> > > P.S. If you are thinking of going to 0.92 anytime soon, help us
> out w/
>> > > the testing if you can. This period while we are putting up
> release
>> > > candidates is the best time for trying stuff out because if you
> find
>> > > an ugly bug, it'll be fixed pretty tout de suite
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>.
I am similarly concerned about the deadlocks in distributed log splitting
that Jimmy and Prakash have been working on.
If distributed long splitting is off by default, I'm +1. If it is going to
be default on, then I'd prefer getting those bugs bumped up to
blockers fixed and then spinning another rc.
Jon.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> HBASE-5099, 5100 were integrated after this RC.
> Also, Prakash has new patch for HBASE-5081.
>
> I think a new RC should be more appropriate for the first 0.92 release.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Now that both Hadoop 1.0 and ZK 3.4.2 have been released I think we
> > should ship with them.
> >
> > Apart from that I'm +1. I even let a LoadTester job run on my 15 nodes
> > during the holidays (287 hours now) and it's still crushing my cluster
> > as much as it did in the beginning without any failure.
> >
> > J-D
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download:
> > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.0-candidate-2/
> > >
> > > I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
> > >
> > > This RC bundles hadoop 1.0.0rc3 and zookeeper 3.4.2rc0.
> > >
> > > As said previous, HBase 0.92.0 includes a raft of new features
> > > including: coprocessors, security, a new (self-migrating) file format,
> > > distributed log splitting, etc. There's been > 600 fixes since 0.90.
> > > See the list here: http://su.pr/1VZzl5
> > >
> > > See the hbase manual for the low-down on what hadoop version this
> > > release will run on: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> > >
> > > There is no migration necessary. A shutdown and restart after putting
> > > in place the new HBase should be all thats involved (A rolling restart
> > > from 0.90.x to 0.92.0 will not work). That said, once you have moved
> > > to 0.92.x, there is no going back to 0.90.x after the transition has
> > > been made.
> > >
> > > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.0? Take it for a spin.
> > > Check out the doc. Vote +1/-1 by January 3rd, 2012.
> > >
> > > Happy Holidays.
> > > Yours,
> > > The HBasistas
> > >
> > > P.S. If you are thinking of going to 0.92 anytime soon, help us out w/
> > > the testing if you can. This period while we are putting up release
> > > candidates is the best time for trying stuff out because if you find
> > > an ugly bug, it'll be fixed pretty tout de suite
> >
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
HBASE-5099, 5100 were integrated after this RC.
Also, Prakash has new patch for HBASE-5081.
I think a new RC should be more appropriate for the first 0.92 release.
Cheers
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>wrote:
> Now that both Hadoop 1.0 and ZK 3.4.2 have been released I think we
> should ship with them.
>
> Apart from that I'm +1. I even let a LoadTester job run on my 15 nodes
> during the holidays (287 hours now) and it's still crushing my cluster
> as much as it did in the beginning without any failure.
>
> J-D
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.0-candidate-2/
> >
> > I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
> >
> > This RC bundles hadoop 1.0.0rc3 and zookeeper 3.4.2rc0.
> >
> > As said previous, HBase 0.92.0 includes a raft of new features
> > including: coprocessors, security, a new (self-migrating) file format,
> > distributed log splitting, etc. There's been > 600 fixes since 0.90.
> > See the list here: http://su.pr/1VZzl5
> >
> > See the hbase manual for the low-down on what hadoop version this
> > release will run on: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> >
> > There is no migration necessary. A shutdown and restart after putting
> > in place the new HBase should be all thats involved (A rolling restart
> > from 0.90.x to 0.92.0 will not work). That said, once you have moved
> > to 0.92.x, there is no going back to 0.90.x after the transition has
> > been made.
> >
> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.0? Take it for a spin.
> > Check out the doc. Vote +1/-1 by January 3rd, 2012.
> >
> > Happy Holidays.
> > Yours,
> > The HBasistas
> >
> > P.S. If you are thinking of going to 0.92 anytime soon, help us out w/
> > the testing if you can. This period while we are putting up release
> > candidates is the best time for trying stuff out because if you find
> > an ugly bug, it'll be fixed pretty tout de suite
>
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
Now that both Hadoop 1.0 and ZK 3.4.2 have been released I think we
should ship with them.
Apart from that I'm +1. I even let a LoadTester job run on my 15 nodes
during the holidays (287 hours now) and it's still crushing my cluster
as much as it did in the beginning without any failure.
J-D
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> The third hbase 0.92.0 release candidate is available for download:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.0-candidate-2/
>
> I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
>
> This RC bundles hadoop 1.0.0rc3 and zookeeper 3.4.2rc0.
>
> As said previous, HBase 0.92.0 includes a raft of new features
> including: coprocessors, security, a new (self-migrating) file format,
> distributed log splitting, etc. There's been > 600 fixes since 0.90.
> See the list here: http://su.pr/1VZzl5
>
> See the hbase manual for the low-down on what hadoop version this
> release will run on: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
>
> There is no migration necessary. A shutdown and restart after putting
> in place the new HBase should be all thats involved (A rolling restart
> from 0.90.x to 0.92.0 will not work). That said, once you have moved
> to 0.92.x, there is no going back to 0.90.x after the transition has
> been made.
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.0? Take it for a spin.
> Check out the doc. Vote +1/-1 by January 3rd, 2012.
>
> Happy Holidays.
> Yours,
> The HBasistas
>
> P.S. If you are thinking of going to 0.92 anytime soon, help us out w/
> the testing if you can. This period while we are putting up release
> candidates is the best time for trying stuff out because if you find
> an ugly bug, it'll be fixed pretty tout de suite