hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:42:54 GMT
Fair enough.

Lets try and do a fast turnaround on RC3.  There are two issues outstanding
after jdcryans fixes for regressions and the jgray fix for balancer, as I
see it.  I've marked them as 0.20.0 (you are on one of them):
http://su.pr/22vilt.

If there are others, speak up folks.

Hopefully new RC3 by morning.

St.Ack



On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wrote:

> I understand your reasoning Stack. However, this project is gathering a lot
> of interest and is being considered in several (many?) places. Some noobs
> will find bugs (???) and make embarrassing and very public keynotes at some
> major conference. Some RD teams at companies considering HBase/Bigtable as
> appropriate architecture might have insufficient confidence or be actually
> burned into opting for something totally sub par but "stable" such as RDBMS
> sharding. Perfection is not required, but a known issue affecting stability
> as according to JGs analysis of the balancing issue, or which causes data
> loss as 1780 and 1784, must be fixed. I agree the rest can be pushed to a
> point release.
>
>   - Andy
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: stack <stack@duboce.net>
> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:44:57 PM
> Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download
>
> My reasoning is that RC2 has enough 'right' about it.  Its radically better
> than our 0.19 offering, as is.
>
> The benefit is that we have a week or two less of 0.19.x and that those who
> only work with released software will get the new hbase earlier.
>
> I'm anxious to get us over this 0.20.0 hump -- yes, it will have known
> defects but every release we've made has had known defects? -- and to get
> the latest documentation up on our site so noobs and those whose only
> interaction with the project is via hbase.org -- the marjority? -- are
> using, finding bugs, and asking questions about the new rather than the
> old.  I'd also like to get the 0.21 hbase focus started.
>
> HBASE-1794 is amusing but for a fact, replay has been broken for many
> releases now.
> HBASE-1780 is a problem in 0.19.x
> HBASE-1784 is an issue, yeah, but looks like the hadoop install is missing
> hadoop-4681?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > There is a lot riding on getting this release right. There have been some
> > serious bugs unearthed since 0.20.0 RC1. This makes me nervous. I'm not
> sure
> > I understand the rationale for releasing 0.20.0 now and then 0.20.1 in
> one
> > week, as opposed to taking the same amount of time to run another RC
> cycle
> > to produce a 0.20.0 without bad known defects. What is the benefit?
> >
> >    HBASE-1794: Recovered data still seems missing until compaction, which
> > might not happen for 24 hours. Seems like a fix is already known?
> >    HBASE-1780: Data loss, known fix.
> >    HBASE-1784: Data loss.
> >
> > I'll try to put up a patch/band-aid against at least one of these
> tonight.
> >
> > HBASE-1784 is really troubling. We should roll back a failed compaction,
> > not vaporize data. -1 on those grounds alone.
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: stack <stack@duboce.net>
> > To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:21:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download
> >
> > It will take a week or so to roll a new RC and to test and vote on it.
> >
> > Why not let out RC2 as 0.20.0 and do 0.20.1 within the next week or so?
> >
> > The balancing issue happens when you new node online only.  Usually
> > balancing ain't bad.
> >
> > The Mathias issue is bad but still being investigated.
> >
> > Andrew?
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Mathias Herberts <
> > mathias.herberts@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 16:51, Jean-Daniel Cryans<jdcryans@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > +1 I ran it without any problem for a while. I asked Mathias if 1784
> > > > should kill it and he thinks no since it is not deterministic.
> > >
> > > Given the latest run I did and the associated logs/investigation which
> > > clearly show that the missing rows is related to failed compactions I
> > > change my mind and now think 1784 should kill this RC.
> > >
> > > so -1 for rc2.
> > >
> > > Mathias.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

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