hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 09/17/2014
Date Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:50:41 GMT
Yeah, it will be even more confusing for having colocation on for 0.99.0,
but off for 0.99.1 and 1.0.

Let me spin up another RC today, and do a 3 day vote.

Enis

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

> I think HBASE-11604 warrants a new RC. Maybe in a dev release we could be
> more relaxed about this, would still be confusing for folks who play with
> this the first time, see the changed the behavior, and then they play again
> and it's back to what it was before.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
> To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:15 AM
> Subject: Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC0) is available.
> Please vote by 09/17/2014
>
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok,
> >
> > Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604.
> > Will do tomorrow.
> >
> >
> You don't want to just fix in a 0.99.1?
>
>
>
> > Should I wait for HBASE-11967?
> >
>
>
> I'd say no.  Non-critical.  Takes some work to repro.  We've had this
> problem always it seems.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Enis
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers
> and
> > > hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0? (Or
> > even
> > > 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on
> features
> > in
> > > 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity?
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation.
> > > >
> > > > I have one question below.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master
> > servers
> > > >> will
> > > >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is
> > shared
> > > >> for
> > > >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting
> the
> > > meta
> > > >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default
> > > >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will
> not
> > be
> > > >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more
> > > >> details.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What
> > do
> > > > folks think?  The new deploy topology will surprise going from
> earlier
> > > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*?
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I
> have
> > > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the
> > > > near-future.
> > >
> >
>

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