hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: rethinking zookeeper version
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:33:46 GMT
Looks like Camille has found something for ZOOKEEPER-1367:
bq. Anyway, I think the problem is not recording the create session to the
txn log.

FYI

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wrote:

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