accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 1.5.1-RC2
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:39:50 GMT
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:

> -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.
>

There is a difference in replication between 1.4 and 1.5.   1.4 used to
replicated data to two loggers.   1.5 using HDFS defaults will replicate
walogs to 3 datanodes. ACCUMULO-1083 [1] has some discussion and numbers
about this.  There is also ACCUMULO-1905 [2], 1.4 would not call hsync.

[1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1083
[2] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1905


>
> 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