Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=DaOwqEMtnFhwOAMRgtNX/ZWDx2ag85uhIMoNxkTv/o0WsaG24zZOu5P7DBXMRn3cUr
         GQjCx8DHy2sX+XVZOKvKoYAq+kzU+iwP9usLo5/zPbNoUsFf/DDD291yEfj848g3J5T2
         SKr7gmPzb9trNj8cSVTX2PO6Gd5FGfufWKMjs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Qt+BFHOxb-Cbg49s_0L6Rd3YH8ncMRwx5UOKn@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin8ZqrfN8xabNuswSQS9+xFtHN8VsXRfdPbykzt@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=Qt+BFHOxb-Cbg49s_0L6Rd3YH8ncMRwx5UOKn@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:44:57 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=5sQa_kyMOLm3LUTHgL9bHTtSR-1nAa8Ga=cjO@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010830 rc2?
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00148501f6fbc453ef049054ea12

--00148501f6fbc453ef049054ea12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
> >
>

--00148501f6fbc453ef049054ea12--