hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Backporting Regionserver Groups (HBASE-6721) to 1.x and 0.98
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:51:21 GMT
> Are we being more stringent with 0.98 because it is expected to be more
stable than a 1.x release?

I am not being more stringent with 0.98. A backport to branch-1 can be
justified IMHO because there appears to be active interest in having it
there to deploy out into production somewhere. Is this also the case for
0.98? ‚ÄčAs you may recall I accepted ZK-less assignment into 0.98 because
Yahoo indicated they'd run the code, so as a result it would get regular
use. It was a decision that wouldn't make sense if there wasn't going to be
active use and upkeep. Otherwise we increase risk and make some users
nervous (I seem to recall Cloudera did not pick up the ZK less assignment
change back when they were still on 0.98) without improved utility for
other users in trade. Just my thinking on the matter.


On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Francis Liu <toffer@apache.org> wrote:

> > performance tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who
> don't want it.
> Andy and Ted, Given that this code does not touch the write path or the
> read path at all it would seem practical to skip read/write perf tests (ie
> YCSB, PE, etc)?
> > where the result will go into someone's production.
> Are we being more stringent with 0.98 because it is expected to be more
> stable than a 1.x release?
>
>
>     On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:11 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>  bq.  same things I asked for MOB: Functional, stability, and performance
> tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who don't want it.
>
> +1 on the above.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to see the same things I asked for MOB: Functional,
> stability,
> > and performance tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who
> > don't want it. Can use the usual suspects: PE, LTT, YCSB, our ITs. Given
> > how 6721 has been implemented I suspect favorable results will be easy to
> > obtain.
> >
> > I think we would like to see a backport to branch-1 because we will be
> > bringing our production up to a 1.x soon.
> >
> > Its fair to consider a backport to 0.98 but as RM for that branch I'd
> like
> > to see it go into branch-1 first and also have a case where the result
> will
> > go into someone's production.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Francis Liu <toffer@ymail.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > HBASE-6721 is now committed to trunk. It'd be great if it can be
> > > backported to 1.x and 0.98 so that we can use it internally as well as
> > push
> > > up features and fixes. We have been running an internal version for
> > around
> > > 4 years. There's seems to be interest (HW, Bloomberg, Salesforce, etc).
> > > Also given how modular the code is. There's barely any effect in
> existing
> > > code paths.
> > > Seeding the criteria with Andy's suggestions in jira:
> > > 1. Stability - Unit tests and ?2. functional3. Performance - Read/write
> > > path was not affected. Some small changes related to assignment.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Francis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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