hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Requesting releases from our upstream dependencies
Date Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:01:51 GMT
Reads well.

Thanks Sean,
St.Ack

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> How's this sound?
>
> ----
> Hi Hadoopers!
>
> Over in HBase we've been discussing the impact of our dependencies on our
> downstream users. As our most fundamental dependency, Hadoop plays a big
> role in the operational cost of running an HBase instance.
>
> Currently the HBase 1.y release line supports Hadoop 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6[1].
> We don't drop Hadoop minor release lines in minor releases so we are
> unlikely remove anything from this set until HBase 2.0, probably at the end
> of 2015 / start of 2016 (and currently we plan to continue supporting at
> least 2.4 for HBase 2.0 [2]). Lately we've been discussing updating our
> shipped binaries to Hadoop 2.6, following some stability testing by part of
> our community[3]. Unfortunately, 2.6.0 in particular has a couple of bugs
> that could destroy HBase clusters should users decide to turn on HDFS
> encryption[4]. Our installation instructions tell folks to replace these
> jars with the version of Hadoop they are actually running, but not all
> users follow those instructions so we want to minimize the pain for them.
>
> Regular maintenance releases are key to keeping operational burdens low for
> our downstream users; we don't want them to be forced to choose between
> living with broken systems and stomaching the risk of upgrades across
> minor/major version numbers. Looking back over the three aforementioned
> Hadoop versions, 2.6 hasn't had a patch release since 2.6.0 came out in Nov
> 2014, when 2.5 had its last patch release as well. Hadoop 2.4 looks to be a
> year without a release[5]. On our discussion of shipping Hadoop 2.6
> binaries, one of your PMC members mentioned that with continued work on the
> 2.7 line y'all weren't planning any additional releases of the earlier
> minor versions[6].
>
> The HBase community requests that Hadoop pick up making bug-fix-only patch
> releases again on a regular schedule[7]. Preferably on the 2.6 line and
> preferably monthly. We realize that given the time gap since 2.6.0 it will
> likely take a big to get 2.6.1 together, but after that it should take much
> less effort to continue.
>
> [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> [2]: http://s.apache.org/ReP
> [3]: HBASE-13339
> [4]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710
> [5]: http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html
> [6]: http://s.apache.org/MTY
> [7]: http://s.apache.org/ViP
>
> -Sean
> ----
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This strikes me as a reasonable (and, err,
> > surprising-that-it's-necissary)
> > > request. +1
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 on making request.
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On one of our open issues about Hadoop versions, one of the
> Hadoop
> > > PMC
> > > > > > members mentioned that the 2.6.z line wasn't planning any
> > additional
> > > > > > releases[1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like us to request, as a downstream community, that the
> Hadoop
> > > > > project
> > > > > > plan for maintenance releases on this line given the
> non-production
> > > > > status
> > > > > > of 2.7.0, unevaluated quality of further 2.7 releases and the
> > unknown
> > > > > > status of a 2.8 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now, there's substantial evidence from our Elliot that
we
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > pushing our users from the 2.4/2.5 releases onto 2.6. At the
> > moment,
> > > > > 2.6.0
> > > > > > contains a couple of critical bugs that effectively prevent
the
> use
> > > of
> > > > > HDFS
> > > > > > transparent encryption[2]. Now, that feature isn't needed but
> it's
> > > nice
> > > > > to
> > > > > > have as an operational alternative to our own implementation.
And
> > the
> > > > > > current bug _destroys_ HBase clusters, so the consequences for
> the
> > > > > curious
> > > > > > are severe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That specific issue aside, however, as a system that runs on
top
> of
> > > > > Hadoop
> > > > > > we impose on our downstream users a dependency on that project.
> > > Regular
> > > > > > maintenance releases are critical to easing long term operational
> > > pain,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > we should proactively look out for them by prodding our less
> stable
> > > > > > upstream dependencies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]: http://s.apache.org/MTY
> > > > > > [2]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sean
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

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