accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <busbey+li...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 1.5.1-RC2
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:21:52 GMT
-1 (if we're still counting votes) due to #3 below

Here's where I am ATM:

* Verified data integrity for data written in 1.4.4 after upgrade (for a
smattering of rfile options, built from source dist with hadoop 2 profile)
* 2x Continuous Ingest 24hr w/verification[1] (built from source dist with
hadoop 2 profile)
    * once for each of RC1 and RC2
    * no agitation due to ACCUMULO-2382 discovered after the fact (NN
failover still present)
    * Significantly fewer cells written than when I last ran on the same
cluster with 1.4.5-6593a9+agitation (7B vs 31B)
* functional tests of binary distro pass on Hadoop 2, given workarounds[2]

1) None of the issues I ran into running tests look like blockers; they've
all been filed at this point.

2) The significant decrease in write throughput might be concerning, but I
don't know if this was already in 1.5.0 so I'm not flagging it.

3) the release notes need to have things broken out by version. Otherwise
you're asking an ops person to go back and look at the 1.5.0 release notes
to determine how 1.5.1 impacts them. For comparison, both Avro and Jackson
(which I consider good exemplars for projects) break out their release
notes to the bugfix[3].

4) I'm a little concerned that no one has done a Hadoop 1 test yet.

[1]: Cluster Specs
OS: CentOS 6.4
Hadoop: CDH 4.5.0 (2.0.0+cdh4.5.0)
ZK: CDH 4.5.0 (3.4.5+cdh4.5.0)
Size: 2 Masters, 5 Workers, HDFS in HA+QJM, 5 ZKs

[2]: Run on single node (backed by the same cluster Bill mentioned earlier)
OS: CentOS 6.4
Hadoop: CDH 4.5.0 (2.0.0+cdh4.5.0)
ZK: CDH 4.5.0 (3.4.5+cdh4.5.0)
Size: 2 Masters, 5 Workers, HDFS in HA+QJM, 3 ZKs

[3]: e.g.
http://svn.codehaus.org/jackson/tags/1.8/1.8.9/release-notes/VERSION
https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/trunk/CHANGES.txt


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I went back and looked at our release governance page[1] and it does
> explicitly state that votes will be 72 hours. So I was out of line when
> asking you to extend it and I'm not sure that the extension is valid at
> this point anyway. Lack of bylaws makes this a messy process.
>
> In light of this I am changing my vote from +1 to +0, since I did not vote
> in the original time frame.
>
> [1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html#releasing
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alright, given the snow, holiday, and the lack of bylaws stating that I
> > cannot do this:
> >
> > I'm extending the VOTE on 1.5.1-RC2 until 02/19/2014 1900 EST (this
> > extends the original duration to a week for those keeping track). This is
> > expected to provide an additional two full work days for people to
> inspect
> > the release.
> >
> > Let's get some good feedback before then, folks.
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> >
> > On 2/15/14, 6:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> Either way works for me.
> >>
> >> I was just suggesting a more formal approach in the absence of bylaws
> >> that explicitly permit extensions. The general concern, I suppose, is
> >> that vote extensions could be used to manipulate to a desired outcome
> >> in a majority approval scheme... so having the vote conditions fixed
> >> at the time it is announced prevents that. I don't think that's a
> >> serious concern, though... especially since we all have the same goal
> >> of producing a quality release, and preventing one that falls short of
> >> that.
> >>
> >> With the bylaws in place, things are simpler, because we'd have
> >> already agreed on those bylaws, and wouldn't need to do anything
> >> silly, like vote on whether to allow a vote extension in the first
> >> place (which would get obnoxious).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Billie Rinaldi
> >> <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  A somewhat more formal way of "extending" the vote would be to simply
> >>>> retract/cancel this vote (or let it lapse with no votes), and just
> >>>> re-issue another vote with identical artifacts at a more opportune
> >>>> time. I point this out for two reasons:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) I don't want to undermine Josh's work to create this release
> >>>> candidate. He shouldn't have to do that again if nothing has changed
> >>>> and we just need more time to review. And,
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) The vote was called with a 72hr. notice, and changing that after
> >>>> the fact is probably a bit questionable. We can achieve the same
> >>>> effect without modifying the characteristics of the vote, by simply
> >>>> calling a new vote, identical to this one, later.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I'm not sure that extending the vote is questionable.  I think it would
> >>> be
> >>> fine if Josh just said the vote deadline is extended to X (perhaps an
> >>> additional 72 hours, or maybe event one week from the original post
> since
> >>> many people have Monday off).  Some Apache projects explicitly mention
> >>> that
> >>> votes may be extended in their bylaws [1], so that's something we could
> >>> consider when we write ours.
> >>>
> >>> But if people would feel more comfortable if Josh reposted the vote,
> I'm
> >>> sure he could do that.  :-)
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> More time would be great. I'll still try to finish up some testing by
> >>>>> tomorrow, but I can't make any guarantees.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If people want some extra time given the impact of snow, please
> inform.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm
> >>>>
> >>>>> ok with extending this a few days if it means people will give it
> more
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> love.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/12/14, 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please consider the following candidate as Apache Accumulo
1.5.1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Git artifacts: The staging repository was built from the
branch
> >>>>>>> "1.5.1-rc2" (c810f51b). No accompanying git tag was created
yet (as
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> would be the same exact thing as providing the above SHA1).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maven Staged Repo:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Source tarball:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5.
> >>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-src.tar.gz
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Binary tarball:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5.
> >>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-bin.tar.gz
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.1-RC1: ACCUMULO-1908, ACCUMULO-1935,
> ACCUMULO-2299,
> >>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2329, ACCUMULO-2331, ACCUMULO-2332, ACCUMULO-2334,
> >>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2337, ACCUMULO-2342, ACCUMULO-2344, ACCUMULO-2356,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> ACCUMULO-2360
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.0:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=
> >>>> commitdiff;h=d277321d176b71753d391f896f09dc9785173cb0
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Keys: http://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Testing:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Manual testing and verification of fixes since RC1 and 12hr
CI with
> >>>>>>> verification performed. All previously mentioned testing
done for
> >>>>>>> RC1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This vote will be open for the next 72 hours.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Upon successful completion of this vote, a 1.5.1 gpg-signed
Git tag
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>
> >>>>> be created from c810f51b and the above staging repository will be
> >>>>>>> promoted.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message