hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: rethinking zookeeper version
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:14:05 GMT
If you dig in on ZOOKEEPER-1367, this is a custom ZooKeeper embedding in a product, not a
deployment scenario that one would see with HBase. I don't want to overestimate or underestimate
the importance of the issue. Currently it is under investigation and the ZK folks haven't
gotten to the bottom of it. Making a decision based on this one JIRA seems premature.

> In any case, security is meaningless without ZK 3.4, so I am not in
> favor of reverting. 


Likewise. 

Whomever reverts the main build to ZK to 3.3 while retaining 3.4 for security would have to
add shims for the NIO server constructor. There is also a problematic Enum change. 
 
Best regards,

     - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) 


----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: rethinking zookeeper version
> 
> As I recall, there were other API changes in zk 3.3 -> 3.4 that would
> make reverting a bit more complicated.  Like the change of
> NIOServerCnxn.Factory -> NIOServerCnxnFactory (refactor to top level
> class).  So reverting while keeping 3.4 usage for security would
> require more work to put in place some kind of shim layer.
> 
> In any case, security is meaningless without ZK 3.4, so I am not in
> favor of reverting.  I haven't been tracking 3.4 development closely,
> so I don't know how much pain bugs in that release have been causing.
> But 3.3 has had issues too.  I was just bit by ZOOKEEPER-1208 last
> week on a running cluster.  Of course this issue is fixed in 3.3.4 and
> 3.4.0.  But that would by my opinion for any current issues we're
> seeing with 3.4 as well -- let's try to get them fixed and move on
> instead of putting effort into backtracking for a temporary solution.
> 
> --gh
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  That's what we have done for internal repository.
>> 
>>  Some of the bugs in 3.4.x are hard to reproduce, track down and fix.
>> 
>>  Of course, Gary and Andrew's opinions are important.
>> 
>>  On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>>  At one point I had proposed making the ZK dependency switch only for
>>>  the security profile in the pom. The ZK 3.4.x series has been buggy so
>>>  far  - I'm sure it will stabilize within month or two, but I'd 
> be +1
>>>  on reverting the non-secure build to 3.3.x in the meantime.
>>> 
>>>  -Todd
>>> 
>>>  On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>>  > HBase 0.92 is using zookeeper 3.4.2
>>>  >
>>>  > Maybe some of you have seen this JIRA
>>>  > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1367
>>>  > It looks like a serious issue.
>>>  >
>>>  > Cheers
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  --
>>>  Todd Lipcon
>>>  Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>> 
> 

Mime
View raw message