You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> on 2010/09/14 02:14:42 UTC

[VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?

Second RC, new vote!

Source binary and source tar balls are available here:

 http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/

You can also browse the candidate documentation here:

 http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/

Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are
roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of
IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see
http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2:

HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique
HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not
being written out to SequenceFile
HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside SplitTransaction

Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of
developer releases?

Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information
about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this
'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are
willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release.  We're
not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not
for production deploys.

We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master
code has gone in.

Please vote by Thursday, September 16th.

Thanks,

J-D

Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?

Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Sounds like this one isn't zk related, but if you run up against something
feel free to ping me.

Patrick

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Just to be clear, the issue isn't ZK, it's us. HBASE-2694 was a
> stepping stone, but the master rewrite ended up in it's own branch.
> That stepping stone isn't needed to run HBase properly.
>
> J-D
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Looping in Patrick who may have insight for
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2694
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it
> >> was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in
> >> production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of
> >> HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't
> >> know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those
> >> fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was
> >> generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya
> >> with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert,
> >> and starting his cluster became much more faster.
> >>
> >> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694
> >> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes).
> >>
> >> What do the devs think?
> >>
> >> Thx,
> >>
> >> J-D
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> jdcryans@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Second RC, new vote!
> >> >
> >> > Source binary and source tar balls are available here:
> >> >
> >> >  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/>
> >> >
> >> > You can also browse the candidate documentation here:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/
> >
> >> >
> >> > Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are
> >> > roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of
> >> > IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see
> >> > http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2:
> >> >
> >> > HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique
> >> > HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not
> >> > being written out to SequenceFile
> >> > HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside
> >> SplitTransaction
> >> >
> >> > Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of
> >> > developer releases?
> >> >
> >> > Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information
> >> > about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this
> >> > 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are
> >> > willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release.  We're
> >> > not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not
> >> > for production deploys.
> >> >
> >> > We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master
> >> > code has gone in.
> >> >
> >> > Please vote by Thursday, September 16th.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > J-D
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?

Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
Ted,

Just to be clear, the issue isn't ZK, it's us. HBASE-2694 was a
stepping stone, but the master rewrite ended up in it's own branch.
That stepping stone isn't needed to run HBase properly.

J-D

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looping in Patrick who may have insight for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2694
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it
>> was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in
>> production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of
>> HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't
>> know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those
>> fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was
>> generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya
>> with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert,
>> and starting his cluster became much more faster.
>>
>> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694
>> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes).
>>
>> What do the devs think?
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> J-D
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Second RC, new vote!
>> >
>> > Source binary and source tar balls are available here:
>> >
>> >  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/>
>> >
>> > You can also browse the candidate documentation here:
>> >
>> >
>> http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/>
>> >
>> > Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are
>> > roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of
>> > IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see
>> > http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2:
>> >
>> > HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique
>> > HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not
>> > being written out to SequenceFile
>> > HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside
>> SplitTransaction
>> >
>> > Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of
>> > developer releases?
>> >
>> > Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information
>> > about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this
>> > 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are
>> > willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release.  We're
>> > not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not
>> > for production deploys.
>> >
>> > We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master
>> > code has gone in.
>> >
>> > Please vote by Thursday, September 16th.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > J-D
>> >
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?

Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Looping in Patrick who may have insight for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2694

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>wrote:

> After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it
> was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in
> production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of
> HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't
> know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those
> fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was
> generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya
> with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert,
> and starting his cluster became much more faster.
>
> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694
> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes).
>
> What do the devs think?
>
> Thx,
>
> J-D
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Second RC, new vote!
> >
> > Source binary and source tar balls are available here:
> >
> >  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/>
> >
> > You can also browse the candidate documentation here:
> >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/>
> >
> > Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are
> > roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of
> > IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see
> > http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2:
> >
> > HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique
> > HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not
> > being written out to SequenceFile
> > HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside
> SplitTransaction
> >
> > Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of
> > developer releases?
> >
> > Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information
> > about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this
> > 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are
> > willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release.  We're
> > not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not
> > for production deploys.
> >
> > We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master
> > code has gone in.
> >
> > Please vote by Thursday, September 16th.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > J-D
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?

Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694
> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes).
>

+1

Add HBASE-2986 I'd say.

Thanks J-D,
St.Ack

Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?

Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>wrote:

> After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it
> was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in
> production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of
> HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't
> know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those
> fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was
> generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya
> with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert,
> and starting his cluster became much more faster.
>
> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694
> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes).
>
> What do the devs think?
>
>
+1. I think we all anticipate that the *next* RC (including the new master)
is going to be less stable initially until we've gone through some rounds of
testing and fixes. So let's make this last pre-new-master release as good as
possible. Releasing something that people are already running successfully
in production seems like a good idea.

-Todd


> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Second RC, new vote!
> >
> > Source binary and source tar balls are available here:
> >
> >  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/
> >
> > You can also browse the candidate documentation here:
> >
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/
> >
> > Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are
> > roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of
> > IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see
> > http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2:
> >
> > HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique
> > HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not
> > being written out to SequenceFile
> > HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside
> SplitTransaction
> >
> > Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of
> > developer releases?
> >
> > Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information
> > about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this
> > 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are
> > willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release.  We're
> > not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not
> > for production deploys.
> >
> > We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master
> > code has gone in.
> >
> > Please vote by Thursday, September 16th.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > J-D
> >
>



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?

Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it
was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in
production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of
HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't
know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those
fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was
generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya
with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert,
and starting his cluster became much more faster.

tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694
reverted (except for the core ZKW changes).

What do the devs think?

Thx,

J-D

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Second RC, new vote!
>
> Source binary and source tar balls are available here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/
>
> You can also browse the candidate documentation here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/
>
> Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are
> roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of
> IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see
> http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2:
>
> HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique
> HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not
> being written out to SequenceFile
> HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside SplitTransaction
>
> Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of
> developer releases?
>
> Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information
> about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this
> 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are
> willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release.  We're
> not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not
> for production deploys.
>
> We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master
> code has gone in.
>
> Please vote by Thursday, September 16th.
>
> Thanks,
>
> J-D
>