hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Requesting releases from our upstream dependencies
Date Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:58:15 GMT
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