hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?
Date Thu, 16 Sep 2010 04:31:24 GMT
Sounds like this one isn't zk related, but if you run up against something
feel free to ping me.

Patrick

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Just to be clear, the issue isn't ZK, it's us. HBASE-2694 was a
> stepping stone, but the master rewrite ended up in it's own branch.
> That stepping stone isn't needed to run HBase properly.
>
> J-D
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Looping in Patrick who may have insight for
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2694
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it
> >> was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in
> >> production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of
> >> HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't
> >> know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those
> >> fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was
> >> generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya
> >> with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert,
> >> and starting his cluster became much more faster.
> >>
> >> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694
> >> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes).
> >>
> >> What do the devs think?
> >>
> >> Thx,
> >>
> >> J-D
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> jdcryans@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Second RC, new vote!
> >> >
> >> > Source binary and source tar balls are available here:
> >> >
> >> >  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/>
> >> >
> >> > You can also browse the candidate documentation here:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/
> <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/
> >
> >> >
> >> > Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are
> >> > roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of
> >> > IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see
> >> > http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2:
> >> >
> >> > HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique
> >> > HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not
> >> > being written out to SequenceFile
> >> > HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside
> >> SplitTransaction
> >> >
> >> > Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of
> >> > developer releases?
> >> >
> >> > Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information
> >> > about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this
> >> > 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are
> >> > willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release.  We're
> >> > not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not
> >> > for production deploys.
> >> >
> >> > We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master
> >> > code has gone in.
> >> >
> >> > Please vote by Thursday, September 16th.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > J-D
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

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