Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 61094 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2009 15:52:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jun 2009 15:52:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 53832 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2009 15:51:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 53623 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2009 15:51:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cassandra-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 53568 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2009 15:51:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:51:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of junrao@almaden.ibm.com) Received: from [32.97.182.143] (HELO e3.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.143) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:51:36 +0000 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n54FkV3f019459 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:46:31 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n54FpFU0112548 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:51:15 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n54FpEfQ001356 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:51:14 -0400 Received: from d01ml604.pok.ibm.com (d01ml604.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.90]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n54FpEjJ001349 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:51:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: 0.3 and the OOM gremlin (CASSANDRA-208) To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 Message-ID: From: Jun Rao Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 08:51:15 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5|December 05, 2008) at 06/04/2009 11:51:14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=07BBFF58DFC595078f9e8a93df938690918c07BBFF58DFC59507" Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0__=07BBFF58DFC595078f9e8a93df938690918c07BBFF58DFC59507 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I vote for (b). By putting off #208, we can release 0.3 quicker. We should include a few caveats in the 0.3 release, including the potential OOME with a large number of keys on a single node and binary incompatibility with future releases. Jun IBM Almaden Research Center K55/B1, 650 Harry Road, San Jose, CA 95120-6099 junrao@almaden.ibm.com Jonathan Ellis wrote on 06/03/2009 02:44:50 PM: > > The fix for 208 [1] is fairly invasive. should we > > (a) release another RC and do more testing before 0.3 final, or > (b) release 0.3 without these changes, and only add this fix to trunk? > > Although I see the 0.3 release primarily as a means to let people > start playing with the cassandra data model, I don't know that I want > to release it knowing that 0.4 is going to be binary-incompatible with > the 0.3 data files. So I'd be inclined towards (a). > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-208 > > -Jonathan --0__=07BBFF58DFC595078f9e8a93df938690918c07BBFF58DFC59507--