Mailing-List: contact hbase-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates
 74.125.92.25 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=gnLoiGKYBrscxOGC+DzrVtgKDMyOrMs6mJCd8PfYtrwxr6JYO3/hu068z4y8epFnvZ
         S+Ml2/pA1Dl/PY4U4DfLxiqW8wTaqDdCXXXnajbzomxJhO9RL5JDIcVM7h3xreW2ka7y
         q5riBHSD590Z1XdMjqP1XcN/Sju6u+GQR2aY0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <858469.97089.qm@web65516.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <7c962aed0908172252q5eab02fax7dfada4ee99dcb32@mail.gmail.com>
	 <260076.10566.qm@web65516.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	 <92c4d8c10908240110s248a5b24of42abd47e49123c2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <31a243e70908240751i7a70cd9dx67b0c91551241247@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1c5747850908260104r6bd8a32al7ef7959194e678d7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7c962aed0908260721h661311r4f535cc64ba8ba0d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <858469.97089.qm@web65516.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:44:57 -0700
Message-ID: <7c962aed0908261044i77754b93v3dd54f4f3bc9142a@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download
From: stack <stack@duboce.net>
To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151774083a70393804720f0242

--00151774083a70393804720f0242
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--00151774083a70393804720f0242--