hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:19:07 GMT
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