You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> on 2014/09/11 10:56:04 UTC
First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available. Please
vote by 09/17/2014
I am very happy to say that the first HBase 0.99.0 release candidate (RC0)
is
available for download at https://people.apache.org/~enis/hbase-0.99.0RC0/
Maven artifacts are also available in the temporary repository
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1037/
Signed with my code signing key E964B5FF.
Signed tag in the repository can be found here:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git;a=tag;h=336a63b5f58bb1c4859e3c2b6a2f5c0d68a7d9e1
NOTE IN GIGANTIC LETTERS THAT THIS IS A DEVELOPER RELEASE.
DO NOT USE THIS RELEASE IN PRODUCTION.
HBase 0.99.0 is a "developer preview" release, and an odd-numbered release
as
defined in https://hbase.apache.org/book/upgrading.html#hbase.versioning.
This release IS NOT intended for production use, and does not contain any
backwards or forwards compatibility guarantees (even within minor versions
0.99.x). Please refrain from deploying this over important data.
0.99.0 release is provided from branch-1, which will be the basis for
HBase-1.0
release. A few 0.99.x releases are planned before 1.0. The reason for
doing a developer preview release is to get more testing for the branch-1
code
that will be released soon as HBase-1.0.0. Thus, all contribution in terms
of
testing, benchmarking, checking API / source /wire compatibility, checking
out
documentation and further code contribution is highly appreciated. 1.0 will
be
the first series in the 1.x line of releases which are expected to keep
compatibility with previous 1.x releases. Thus it is very important to
check
the client side and server side APIs for compatibility and maintainability
concerns for future releases.
0.99.0 contains slightly more than 1K issues resolved with many
improvements
and bug fixes. The theme of (eventual) 1.0 release is to become a stable
base
for future 1.x series of releases. 1.0 release will aim to achieve at least
the same level of stability of 0.98 releases without introducing too many
new
features.
Some work has been under way to clearly mark and differentiate client
facing
APIs, and redefine some of the client interfaces for improving semantics,
easy
of use and maintainability. 0.99.0 contains some of the completed items,
and
the rest can be found HBASE-10602. Marking/remarking of interfaces with
InterfaceAudience has also been going on, which will identify areas for
compatibility (with clients, coprocessors and dependent projects like
Phoenix)
for future releases.
Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
will
also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
for
the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the meta
table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
(unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
details.
This release contains Phase 1 items for experimental "Read availability
using
timeline consistent region replicas" feature. A region can be hosted in
multiple region servers in read-only mode. One of the replicas for the
region
will be primary, accepting writes, and other replicas will be sharing the
same
data files. Read requests can be done against any replica for the region
with
backup RPCs for high availability with timeline consistency guarantees.
More
information can be found at HBASE-10070.
Other notable improvements in this release are
- Automatic tuning of global memstore and block cache sizes
- Various security, tags and visibility labels improvements
- Bucket cache improvements (usability and compressed data blocks)
- A new pluggable replication endpoint to plug in to HBase's inter-cluster
replication to replicate to a custom data store
- A Dockerfile to easily build and run HBase from source
- Internal refactoring for abstracting away zookeeper usage
- Truncate table command
- Region assignment to use hbase:meta table instead of zookeeper for faster
region assignment (disabled by default)
- Better support for Cell interface internally in read and write paths for
better performance and flexibility
- Combining internal mvcc and seqId infrastructure
- Extensive documentation improvements
- Numerous improvements in other areas and bug fixes.
The release has these changes in default behaviour:
- hfile version 3 has been enabled by default
- Distributed log replay has been enabled by default
- Slab cache has been removed (use bucket cache instead)
- Some client facing APIs (HTableInterface, etc) has been deprecated and
replaced.
We have also adopted an orca as the mascot for Apache HBase. See it at
https://hbase.apache.org/
Thanks for everybody who have contributed to this release. Full list of the
issues
can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12325675
Compatibility
-------------
0.99.x series of releases are preview of upcoming 1.0 release. HBase-1.0 is
planned to be wire compatible with 0.98.x and 0.96.x releases. Clients and
servers running in different versions as long as new features are not used
should be possible.
A rolling upgrade from 0.98.x clusters to 0.99.0 is supported as well.
0.99.0
introduces a new file format (hfile v3) that is enabled by default that
0.96.x code cannot read. Rolling upgrade from 0.96 directly to 0.99 is not
tested.
Direct migration from 0.94.x is also supported but it IS NOT tested. Before
HBase-1.0 we expect to complete the test.
Binary compatibility at the Java API layer with earlier versions (0.98.x,
0.96.x and 0.94.x) is not supported. You may have to recompile your client
code and any server side code (coprocessors, filters etc) referring to
hbase jars.
0.99.0 release introduces new APIs, and deprecates some of commonly-used
client side APIs (HTableInterface, etc). However, client side code is
expected
to be source compatible with earlier versions. However we advise to update
your application to use the new style of APIs, since deprecated APIs might
be removed in future releases (2.x).
Supported Hadoop versions
-------------------------
0.99.0 release drops support for Hadoop-1.x releases. Only Hadoop-2.x
releases are supported. Hadoop-2.4.x and Hadoop-2.5.x releases are the
most tested hadoop releases and we recommend running with those versions.
Earlier Hadoop-2 based releases (hadoop-2.2.x and 2.3.x) are not tested to
the full
extend. More information can be found here:
https://hbase.apache.org/book/configuration.html#hadoop
Supported Java versions
-------------------------
0.99.0 release drops support for JDK6. Only JDK7 is supported. JDK8 support
is experimental. More information can be found here:
https://hbase.apache.org/book/configuration.html#java
Voting
------
Please try to test and vote on this release by 09/17/2014 11:59PM PDT.
[] +1 Release the artifacts as 0.99.0
[] -1 DO NOT release the artifacts as 0.99.0, because...
Thanks for helping to get a stable release out!
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
+1
md5 is good. Signature checked out but said this:
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
... so maybe put yours up in public place?
Thanks for filling out CHANGES.txt with included fixes.
Tried to start up master but failed because old dir in place (HMaster
wouldn't go down on FATAL error... HBASE-11967).
I wish we could turn down the zk logging especially its IOE dumps though
all is working 'normally'.
Docs look good (did you copy in the latest?)
Loaded up some data. Verified it there. Seems slower. More MR going on?
Logs look ok.
I've been running close to tip on a little cluster here and it looks
basically fine.
Will continue testing...
(I don't think you need a week-long VOTE for a developer release we know
has issues in it)
St.Ack
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am very happy to say that the first HBase 0.99.0 release candidate (RC0)
> is
> available for download at https://people.apache.org/~enis/hbase-0.99.0RC0/
>
> Maven artifacts are also available in the temporary repository
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1037/
>
> Signed with my code signing key E964B5FF.
>
> Signed tag in the repository can be found here:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git;a=tag;h=336a63b5f58bb1c4859e3c2b6a2f5c0d68a7d9e1
>
> NOTE IN GIGANTIC LETTERS THAT THIS IS A DEVELOPER RELEASE.
> DO NOT USE THIS RELEASE IN PRODUCTION.
>
> HBase 0.99.0 is a "developer preview" release, and an odd-numbered release
> as
> defined in https://hbase.apache.org/book/upgrading.html#hbase.versioning.
> This release IS NOT intended for production use, and does not contain any
> backwards or forwards compatibility guarantees (even within minor versions
> 0.99.x). Please refrain from deploying this over important data.
>
> 0.99.0 release is provided from branch-1, which will be the basis for
> HBase-1.0
> release. A few 0.99.x releases are planned before 1.0. The reason for
> doing a developer preview release is to get more testing for the branch-1
> code
> that will be released soon as HBase-1.0.0. Thus, all contribution in terms
> of
> testing, benchmarking, checking API / source /wire compatibility, checking
> out
> documentation and further code contribution is highly appreciated. 1.0 will
> be
> the first series in the 1.x line of releases which are expected to keep
> compatibility with previous 1.x releases. Thus it is very important to
> check
> the client side and server side APIs for compatibility and maintainability
> concerns for future releases.
>
> 0.99.0 contains slightly more than 1K issues resolved with many
> improvements
> and bug fixes. The theme of (eventual) 1.0 release is to become a stable
> base
> for future 1.x series of releases. 1.0 release will aim to achieve at least
> the same level of stability of 0.98 releases without introducing too many
> new
> features.
>
> Some work has been under way to clearly mark and differentiate client
> facing
> APIs, and redefine some of the client interfaces for improving semantics,
> easy
> of use and maintainability. 0.99.0 contains some of the completed items,
> and
> the rest can be found HBASE-10602. Marking/remarking of interfaces with
> InterfaceAudience has also been going on, which will identify areas for
> compatibility (with clients, coprocessors and dependent projects like
> Phoenix)
> for future releases.
>
> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> will
> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
> for
> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the meta
> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> details.
>
> This release contains Phase 1 items for experimental "Read availability
> using
> timeline consistent region replicas" feature. A region can be hosted in
> multiple region servers in read-only mode. One of the replicas for the
> region
> will be primary, accepting writes, and other replicas will be sharing the
> same
> data files. Read requests can be done against any replica for the region
> with
> backup RPCs for high availability with timeline consistency guarantees.
> More
> information can be found at HBASE-10070.
>
> Other notable improvements in this release are
> - Automatic tuning of global memstore and block cache sizes
> - Various security, tags and visibility labels improvements
> - Bucket cache improvements (usability and compressed data blocks)
> - A new pluggable replication endpoint to plug in to HBase's inter-cluster
> replication to replicate to a custom data store
> - A Dockerfile to easily build and run HBase from source
> - Internal refactoring for abstracting away zookeeper usage
> - Truncate table command
> - Region assignment to use hbase:meta table instead of zookeeper for
> faster
> region assignment (disabled by default)
> - Better support for Cell interface internally in read and write paths for
> better performance and flexibility
> - Combining internal mvcc and seqId infrastructure
> - Extensive documentation improvements
> - Numerous improvements in other areas and bug fixes.
>
> The release has these changes in default behaviour:
> - hfile version 3 has been enabled by default
> - Distributed log replay has been enabled by default
> - Slab cache has been removed (use bucket cache instead)
> - Some client facing APIs (HTableInterface, etc) has been deprecated and
> replaced.
>
> We have also adopted an orca as the mascot for Apache HBase. See it at
> https://hbase.apache.org/
>
> Thanks for everybody who have contributed to this release. Full list of the
> issues
> can be found here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12325675
>
>
> Compatibility
> -------------
> 0.99.x series of releases are preview of upcoming 1.0 release. HBase-1.0 is
> planned to be wire compatible with 0.98.x and 0.96.x releases. Clients and
> servers running in different versions as long as new features are not used
> should be possible.
> A rolling upgrade from 0.98.x clusters to 0.99.0 is supported as well.
> 0.99.0
> introduces a new file format (hfile v3) that is enabled by default that
> 0.96.x code cannot read. Rolling upgrade from 0.96 directly to 0.99 is not
> tested.
>
> Direct migration from 0.94.x is also supported but it IS NOT tested. Before
> HBase-1.0 we expect to complete the test.
>
> Binary compatibility at the Java API layer with earlier versions (0.98.x,
> 0.96.x and 0.94.x) is not supported. You may have to recompile your client
> code and any server side code (coprocessors, filters etc) referring to
> hbase jars.
>
> 0.99.0 release introduces new APIs, and deprecates some of commonly-used
> client side APIs (HTableInterface, etc). However, client side code is
> expected
> to be source compatible with earlier versions. However we advise to update
> your application to use the new style of APIs, since deprecated APIs might
> be removed in future releases (2.x).
>
>
> Supported Hadoop versions
> -------------------------
> 0.99.0 release drops support for Hadoop-1.x releases. Only Hadoop-2.x
> releases are supported. Hadoop-2.4.x and Hadoop-2.5.x releases are the
> most tested hadoop releases and we recommend running with those versions.
> Earlier Hadoop-2 based releases (hadoop-2.2.x and 2.3.x) are not tested to
> the full
> extend. More information can be found here:
> https://hbase.apache.org/book/configuration.html#hadoop
>
>
> Supported Java versions
> -------------------------
> 0.99.0 release drops support for JDK6. Only JDK7 is supported. JDK8 support
> is experimental. More information can be found here:
> https://hbase.apache.org/book/configuration.html#java
>
>
> Voting
> ------
> Please try to test and vote on this release by 09/17/2014 11:59PM PDT.
> [] +1 Release the artifacts as 0.99.0
> [] -1 DO NOT release the artifacts as 0.99.0, because...
>
> Thanks for helping to get a stable release out!
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Jean-Marc:
I ran TestByteBufferIOEngine on Linux more than 10 times and they all
passed.
Can you pastebin test output ?
Thanks
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> Exciting to see 0.99 (and so 1.0) coming soon!
>
> I'm running a lot of tests for this release like for any other, but just to
> report that so far, mvn test fails about 70% of the time time on a time out
> on TestByteBufferIOEngine. Am I the only one to face that?
>
> JM
>
> 2014-09-11 13:02 GMT-04:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
>
> > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> >
> > I have one question below.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> > > will
> > > also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> shared
> > > for
> > > the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> > meta
> > > table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > > (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not
> be
> > > hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > > details.
> > >
> >
> > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > St.Ack
> >
> > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > near-future.
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
My 3 last runs:
jdk1.7:
Run 1:
Failed tests:
testActiveThreadsCount(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMultiParallel):
expected:<5> but was:<4>
testGetPreviousRecoveryMode(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.TestSplitLogManager)
Run 2:
testBalanceOnMasterFailoverScenarioWithOfflineNode(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.TestAssignmentManager):
test timed out after 60000 milliseconds
Run 3:
Failed tests: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.replication.TestReplicationEndpoint
testRowMutationMultiThreads(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.TestAtomicOperation):
expected:<0> but was:<10>
And the related outputs: http://server.distparser.com:81/hbase/
I run with 12 threads for testing. I will try to reduce it and retry.
2014-09-11 14:11 GMT-04:00 Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> > Exciting to see 0.99 (and so 1.0) coming soon!
> >
>
> Yay!
>
>
> >
> > I'm running a lot of tests for this release like for any other, but just
> to
> > report that so far, mvn test fails about 70% of the time time on a time
> out
> > on TestByteBufferIOEngine. Am I the only one to face that?
> >
>
> https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0/ is blue for some time. I
> did not see that test failing recently. What does the log say?
>
>
> >
> > JM
> >
> > 2014-09-11 13:02 GMT-04:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
> >
> > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> > >
> > > I have one question below.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> servers
> > > > will
> > > > also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> > shared
> > > > for
> > > > the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> > > meta
> > > > table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > > > (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not
> > be
> > > > hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What
> do
> > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > > near-future.
> > >
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
Sound like I'm the specialist to get TimeOuts on the tests ;) Got them on
0.98 too ;)
I will send that shortly.
JM
2014-09-11 14:11 GMT-04:00 Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> > Exciting to see 0.99 (and so 1.0) coming soon!
> >
>
> Yay!
>
>
> >
> > I'm running a lot of tests for this release like for any other, but just
> to
> > report that so far, mvn test fails about 70% of the time time on a time
> out
> > on TestByteBufferIOEngine. Am I the only one to face that?
> >
>
> https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0/ is blue for some time. I
> did not see that test failing recently. What does the log say?
>
>
> >
> > JM
> >
> > 2014-09-11 13:02 GMT-04:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
> >
> > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> > >
> > > I have one question below.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> servers
> > > > will
> > > > also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> > shared
> > > > for
> > > > the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> > > meta
> > > > table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > > > (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not
> > be
> > > > hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What
> do
> > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > > near-future.
> > >
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> Exciting to see 0.99 (and so 1.0) coming soon!
>
Yay!
>
> I'm running a lot of tests for this release like for any other, but just to
> report that so far, mvn test fails about 70% of the time time on a time out
> on TestByteBufferIOEngine. Am I the only one to face that?
>
https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0/ is blue for some time. I
did not see that test failing recently. What does the log say?
>
> JM
>
> 2014-09-11 13:02 GMT-04:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
>
> > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> >
> > I have one question below.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> > > will
> > > also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> shared
> > > for
> > > the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> > meta
> > > table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > > (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not
> be
> > > hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > > details.
> > >
> >
> > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > St.Ack
> >
> > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > near-future.
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
Exciting to see 0.99 (and so 1.0) coming soon!
I'm running a lot of tests for this release like for any other, but just to
report that so far, mvn test fails about 70% of the time time on a time out
on TestByteBufferIOEngine. Am I the only one to face that?
JM
2014-09-11 13:02 GMT-04:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
> Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
>
> I have one question below.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...
>
> >
> > Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> > will
> > also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
> > for
> > the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> meta
> > table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
> > hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > details.
> >
>
> I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> St.Ack
>
> * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> near-future.
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
>I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
>folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
>version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
Yes. I was not able to test HBASE-11604 last night, that's why it was not
involved in this RC. Let me test it and
commit the patch. If RC sinks (HBASE-11947 or some other reason) we'll have
it off by default.
Enis
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
>
> I have one question below.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...
>
> >
> > Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> > will
> > also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
> > for
> > the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> meta
> > table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
> > hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > details.
> >
>
> I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> St.Ack
>
> * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> near-future.
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
I've put up another release candidate (RC1) just now. It includes 23 more
jiras including disabling master-meta colocation. Please try to test and
vote by Friday.
Thanks JM for the failure reporting. TestAssignmentManager and
TestSplitLogManager
are pretty flaky lately.
Stack, I think I've uploaded my signing key to MIT servers. It should also
be there at https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/enis.asc and
https://www.us.apache.org/dist/hbase/KEYS. I don't know whether I have to
put it anywhere else.
Enis
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> FYI, still on 0.99.0 RC 0 for now. I have been able to stabilize the tests
> on my side. Issues where because of zombi deamons from previous tests. So I
> now kill them all before I restart, and clear the tmp directory.
>
> Now, with JDK1.8 I have been able to run it 5 times, got 5 times the same
> error.
>
> Tests in error:
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.http.TestSSLHttpServer: Subject class type
> invalid.
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.http.TestSSLHttpServer
>
> Tests run: 918, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 5
>
> On the log side:
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,198 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopped
> org.mortbay.jetty.webapp.WebAppContext@a5993cf
>
> {/,file:/home/jmspaggi/hbase-0.99.0/hbase-server/target/test-classes/webapps/test}
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,198 INFO [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(67): Stopped
> SslSocketConnector@localhost:0
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,200 DEBUG [2116514935@qtp-1330098355-2]
> log.Slf4jLog(49): EXCEPTION
> java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
> at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:190)
> at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:122)
> at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.readFully(InputRecord.java:442)
> at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.read(InputRecord.java:480)
> at
> sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:927)
> at
> sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readDataRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:884)
> at sun.security.ssl.AppInputStream.read(AppInputStream.java:102)
> at
> org.mortbay.io.ByteArrayBuffer.readFrom(ByteArrayBuffer.java:382)
> at org.mortbay.io.bio.StreamEndPoint.fill(StreamEndPoint.java:114)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.fill(SocketConnector.java:198)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseNext(HttpParser.java:290)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseAvailable(HttpParser.java:212)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpConnection.handle(HttpConnection.java:404)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.run(SocketConnector.java:228)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.jetty.security.SslSocketConnector$SslConnection.run(SslSocketConnector.java:713)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582)
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [2116514935@qtp-1330098355-2]
> log.Slf4jLog(40): EOF
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopped
> SslSocketConnector@localhost:0
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [2090681887@qtp-1330098355-0]
> log.Slf4jLog(49): EXCEPTION
> java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
> at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:190)
> at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:122)
> at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.readFully(InputRecord.java:442)
> at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.read(InputRecord.java:480)
> at
> sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:927)
> at
> sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readDataRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:884)
> at sun.security.ssl.AppInputStream.read(AppInputStream.java:102)
> at
> org.mortbay.io.ByteArrayBuffer.readFrom(ByteArrayBuffer.java:382)
> at org.mortbay.io.bio.StreamEndPoint.fill(StreamEndPoint.java:114)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.fill(SocketConnector.java:198)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseNext(HttpParser.java:290)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseAvailable(HttpParser.java:212)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpConnection.handle(HttpConnection.java:404)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.run(SocketConnector.java:228)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.jetty.security.SslSocketConnector$SslConnection.run(SslSocketConnector.java:713)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582)
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopping
> Server@6ba1e06e
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [2090681887@qtp-1330098355-0]
> log.Slf4jLog(40): EOF
> 2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopping
> ContextHandlerCollection@50958cf6
>
>
> On JDK1.7 I got a failure in
>
> testBalanceOnMasterFailoverScenarioWithClosedNode(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.TestAssignmentManager):
> test timed out after 60000 milliseconds
>
> Most probably because a previous test using mini cluster did not kill it
> corretly, or because 2 was running at the same time?
>
> 2014-09-16 09:23:03,226 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1]
> zookeeper.MiniZooKeeperCluster(171): Failed binding ZK Server to client
> port: 59854
> java.net.BindException: Adresse déjà utilisée
> at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind0(Native Method)
> at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:444)
>
>
> And
>
> testGetPreviousRecoveryMode(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.TestSplitLogManager)
> too. Not the first time.
>
> I have been able to get a correct run from time to time, but not that
> often.
>
> JM
>
>
> 2014-09-15 17:50 GMT-04:00 Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Yeah, it will be even more confusing for having colocation on for 0.99.0,
> > but off for 0.99.1 and 1.0.
> >
> > Let me spin up another RC today, and do a 3 day vote.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I think HBASE-11604 warrants a new RC. Maybe in a dev release we could
> be
> > > more relaxed about this, would still be confusing for folks who play
> with
> > > this the first time, see the changed the behavior, and then they play
> > again
> > > and it's back to what it was before.
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> > > To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is
> available.
> > > Please vote by 09/17/2014
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok,
> > > >
> > > > Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing
> HBASE-11604.
> > > > Will do tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You don't want to just fix in a 0.99.1?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Should I wait for HBASE-11967?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say no. Non-critical. Takes some work to repro. We've had this
> > > problem always it seems.
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Enis
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree it would be surprising to have masters running
> RegionServers
> > > and
> > > > > hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0?
> > (Or
> > > > even
> > > > > 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on
> > > features
> > > > in
> > > > > 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing
> > evaluation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have one question below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> > > > servers
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI
> is
> > > > shared
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be
> hosting
> > > the
> > > > > meta
> > > > > >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by
> > default
> > > > > >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters
> will
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for
> > more
> > > > > >> details.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0.
> > What
> > > > do
> > > > > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from
> > > earlier
> > > > > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I
> > > have
> > > > > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in
> the
> > > > > > near-future.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
FYI, still on 0.99.0 RC 0 for now. I have been able to stabilize the tests
on my side. Issues where because of zombi deamons from previous tests. So I
now kill them all before I restart, and clear the tmp directory.
Now, with JDK1.8 I have been able to run it 5 times, got 5 times the same
error.
Tests in error:
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.http.TestSSLHttpServer: Subject class type
invalid.
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.http.TestSSLHttpServer
Tests run: 918, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 5
On the log side:
2014-09-11 21:42:59,198 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopped
org.mortbay.jetty.webapp.WebAppContext@a5993cf
{/,file:/home/jmspaggi/hbase-0.99.0/hbase-server/target/test-classes/webapps/test}
2014-09-11 21:42:59,198 INFO [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(67): Stopped
SslSocketConnector@localhost:0
2014-09-11 21:42:59,200 DEBUG [2116514935@qtp-1330098355-2]
log.Slf4jLog(49): EXCEPTION
java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:190)
at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:122)
at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.readFully(InputRecord.java:442)
at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.read(InputRecord.java:480)
at sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:927)
at
sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readDataRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:884)
at sun.security.ssl.AppInputStream.read(AppInputStream.java:102)
at org.mortbay.io.ByteArrayBuffer.readFrom(ByteArrayBuffer.java:382)
at org.mortbay.io.bio.StreamEndPoint.fill(StreamEndPoint.java:114)
at
org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.fill(SocketConnector.java:198)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseNext(HttpParser.java:290)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseAvailable(HttpParser.java:212)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpConnection.handle(HttpConnection.java:404)
at
org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.run(SocketConnector.java:228)
at
org.mortbay.jetty.security.SslSocketConnector$SslConnection.run(SslSocketConnector.java:713)
at
org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582)
2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [2116514935@qtp-1330098355-2]
log.Slf4jLog(40): EOF
2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopped
SslSocketConnector@localhost:0
2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [2090681887@qtp-1330098355-0]
log.Slf4jLog(49): EXCEPTION
java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:190)
at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:122)
at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.readFully(InputRecord.java:442)
at sun.security.ssl.InputRecord.read(InputRecord.java:480)
at sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:927)
at
sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl.readDataRecord(SSLSocketImpl.java:884)
at sun.security.ssl.AppInputStream.read(AppInputStream.java:102)
at org.mortbay.io.ByteArrayBuffer.readFrom(ByteArrayBuffer.java:382)
at org.mortbay.io.bio.StreamEndPoint.fill(StreamEndPoint.java:114)
at
org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.fill(SocketConnector.java:198)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseNext(HttpParser.java:290)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseAvailable(HttpParser.java:212)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpConnection.handle(HttpConnection.java:404)
at
org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.run(SocketConnector.java:228)
at
org.mortbay.jetty.security.SslSocketConnector$SslConnection.run(SslSocketConnector.java:713)
at
org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582)
2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopping
Server@6ba1e06e
2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [2090681887@qtp-1330098355-0]
log.Slf4jLog(40): EOF
2014-09-11 21:42:59,201 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1] log.Slf4jLog(40): stopping
ContextHandlerCollection@50958cf6
On JDK1.7 I got a failure in
testBalanceOnMasterFailoverScenarioWithClosedNode(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.TestAssignmentManager):
test timed out after 60000 milliseconds
Most probably because a previous test using mini cluster did not kill it
corretly, or because 2 was running at the same time?
2014-09-16 09:23:03,226 DEBUG [pool-1-thread-1]
zookeeper.MiniZooKeeperCluster(171): Failed binding ZK Server to client
port: 59854
java.net.BindException: Adresse déjà utilisée
at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind0(Native Method)
at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:444)
And
testGetPreviousRecoveryMode(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.TestSplitLogManager)
too. Not the first time.
I have been able to get a correct run from time to time, but not that often.
JM
2014-09-15 17:50 GMT-04:00 Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>:
> Yeah, it will be even more confusing for having colocation on for 0.99.0,
> but off for 0.99.1 and 1.0.
>
> Let me spin up another RC today, and do a 3 day vote.
>
> Enis
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think HBASE-11604 warrants a new RC. Maybe in a dev release we could be
> > more relaxed about this, would still be confusing for folks who play with
> > this the first time, see the changed the behavior, and then they play
> again
> > and it's back to what it was before.
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> > To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
> > Please vote by 09/17/2014
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok,
> > >
> > > Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604.
> > > Will do tomorrow.
> > >
> > >
> > You don't want to just fix in a 0.99.1?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Should I wait for HBASE-11967?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'd say no. Non-critical. Takes some work to repro. We've had this
> > problem always it seems.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers
> > and
> > > > hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0?
> (Or
> > > even
> > > > 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on
> > features
> > > in
> > > > 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing
> evaluation.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have one question below.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> > > servers
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> > > shared
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting
> > the
> > > > meta
> > > > >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by
> default
> > > > >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will
> > not
> > > be
> > > > >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for
> more
> > > > >> details.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0.
> What
> > > do
> > > > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from
> > earlier
> > > > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > >
> > > > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I
> > have
> > > > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > > > > near-future.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, it will be even more confusing for having colocation on for 0.99.0,
but off for 0.99.1 and 1.0.
Let me spin up another RC today, and do a 3 day vote.
Enis
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think HBASE-11604 warrants a new RC. Maybe in a dev release we could be
> more relaxed about this, would still be confusing for folks who play with
> this the first time, see the changed the behavior, and then they play again
> and it's back to what it was before.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:15 AM
> Subject: Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
> Please vote by 09/17/2014
>
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok,
> >
> > Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604.
> > Will do tomorrow.
> >
> >
> You don't want to just fix in a 0.99.1?
>
>
>
> > Should I wait for HBASE-11967?
> >
>
>
> I'd say no. Non-critical. Takes some work to repro. We've had this
> problem always it seems.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Enis
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers
> and
> > > hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0? (Or
> > even
> > > 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on
> features
> > in
> > > 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> > > >
> > > > I have one question below.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> > servers
> > > >> will
> > > >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> > shared
> > > >> for
> > > >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting
> the
> > > meta
> > > >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > > >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will
> not
> > be
> > > >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > > >> details.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What
> > do
> > > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from
> earlier
> > > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I
> have
> > > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > > > near-future.
> > >
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
I think HBASE-11604 warrants a new RC. Maybe in a dev release we could be more relaxed about this, would still be confusing for folks who play with this the first time, see the changed the behavior, and then they play again and it's back to what it was before.
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 09/17/2014
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok,
>
> Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604.
> Will do tomorrow.
>
>
You don't want to just fix in a 0.99.1?
> Should I wait for HBASE-11967?
>
I'd say no. Non-critical. Takes some work to repro. We've had this
problem always it seems.
St.Ack
> Enis
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers and
> > hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0? (Or
> even
> > 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on features
> in
> > 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> > >
> > > I have one question below.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> servers
> > >> will
> > >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> shared
> > >> for
> > >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> > meta
> > >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not
> be
> > >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > >> details.
> > >
> > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What
> do
> > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > > near-future.
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok,
>
> Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604.
> Will do tomorrow.
>
>
You don't want to just fix in a 0.99.1?
> Should I wait for HBASE-11967?
>
I'd say no. Non-critical. Takes some work to repro. We've had this
problem always it seems.
St.Ack
> Enis
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers and
> > hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0? (Or
> even
> > 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on features
> in
> > 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> > >
> > > I have one question below.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> servers
> > >> will
> > >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> shared
> > >> for
> > >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> > meta
> > >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not
> be
> > >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > >> details.
> > >
> > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What
> do
> > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > > near-future.
> >
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>.
Ok,
Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604.
Will do tomorrow.
Should I wait for HBASE-11967?
Enis
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers and
> hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0? (Or even
> 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on features in
> 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> >
> > I have one question below.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> >> will
> >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
> >> for
> >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> meta
> >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
> >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> >> details.
> >
> > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > St.Ack
> >
> > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > near-future.
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers and hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0? (Or even 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on features in 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
>
> I have one question below.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
>> will
>> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
>> for
>> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the meta
>> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
>> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
>> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
>> details.
>
> I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> St.Ack
>
> * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> near-future.
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
I agree as well.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:30 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> folks think?
>
> I agree 100%. That will lead to... uhm... surprises.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
> Please vote by 09/17/2014
>
>
> Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
>
> I have one question below.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...
>
> >
> > Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> > will
> > also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
> > for
> > the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the
> meta
> > table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
> > hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > details.
> >
>
> I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
> folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
> version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> St.Ack
>
> * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
> since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> near-future.
>
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
> I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
folks think?
I agree 100%. That will lead to... uhm... surprises.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 09/17/2014
Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
I have one question below.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
...
>
> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> will
> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
> for
> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the meta
> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> details.
>
I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
St.Ack
* I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
near-future.
Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
Please vote by 09/17/2014
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
I have one question below.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
...
>
> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers
> will
> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared
> for
> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the meta
> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be
> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> details.
>
I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do
folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier
version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
St.Ack
* I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have
since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
near-future.