hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Backporting Regionserver Groups (HBASE-6721) to 1.x and 0.98
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:05:44 GMT
I don't think we need to do a major for RS groups. 

I do think Elliott's points can be addressed by getting a 2.0 out the door soon containing
whatever we have on deck now to go in. 

Probably not going to satisfy everyone here - but maybe? 


> On Mar 17, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <theo.bertozzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why MOB and RegionServer Groups should be in a new major version and stuff
> like the new RPC queue (HBASE-15136), date based tiered compactions
> (HBASE-15181), special handling for system tables WALs (HBASE-13557), keep
> table state in meta (HBASE-13017) or the Region Normalizer (HBASE-13103)
> are considered for or already in 1.x?
> 
> to me, and probably most of the users, a new Major version means that APIs
> will break, wire may break, there may be an upgrade of some sort and so on.
> which is not true for MOB and RS groups.
> 
> In case we do a major for RS groups and Mob will that still based on the
> 1.x branch?
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I remember explicitly saying I was not against a backport of the MOB
>> feature. You are misrepresenting my position a bit. Sure, I'm a skeptic.
>> Not a big deal because I don't think we can or should seek a blanket rule.
>> Sometimes a feature will have sufficient interest and applicability that a
>> backport is worth considering, and then there's a question of what kind of
>> risk the changes envisioned carry. RS groups as implemented are low risk.
>> Meanwhile MOB is highly invasive. I think RS groups would have two large
>> production users soon after introduction into branch-1. I'm not sure about
>> MOB. They are worth consideration on their own merits and on user demand
>> for them.
>> 
>> Another thing we could do is get 2.0 started right now. Whatever major
>> that doesn't make the cut could go into 3.0. I think the requests for these
>> backports are coming because there is no near time horizon for a 2.0
>> release. So set it soon?
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Because I for one might well want to run RS groups in production with
>>>> branch-1 code without waiting for or dealing with the other stuff
>> coming in
>>>> any 2.0.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is the same email that I sent for MOB. Which you agreed with then.
>> But
>>> not now. There's nothing substantively different about this feature that
>>> makes it different from any other feature. It's a large change that
>> wasn't
>>> there in 1.X line.
>>> 
>>> I would like backups, and procedure v2 in 1.x. However even if it landed
>>> tomorrow they shouldn't be back ported as it's a large feature that's not
>>> ready. If we want anyone to ever upgrade major versions, then the new
>>> features have to come along with the new apis. Other wise we will end up
>> in
>>> the same state that Hadoop has.
>> 

Mime
View raw message