hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Branch for 1.3
Date Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:56:59 GMT
At least include HBASE-15400 in 1.3 please...
Otherwise these things can only be integrated in 1.4 since DTCP can not be
used together with DefaultStoreEngine after HBASE-15400 getting in.

2016-03-22 2:03 GMT+08:00 Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>:

> You may want to track https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339 as
> a parent for date-tiered compaction improvements. Current compaction policy
> is useful in its own, but handling existing data, bulk loading etc will be
> improved with these subtasks. I think the patches can land before the 1.3
> timeframe, but of course open for discussion for inclusion. My vote would
> be to include all the improvements since it would be easier to tell the
> story to users.
>
> Enis
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For Spark connector, we should start a separate discussion thread about
> > backporting to branch-1.
> >
> > Zhan has a bug fix coming this week which deals with how negative numbers
> > are handled in comparison.
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > bringing this topic up again. I'm planning to start spinning 1.3 builds
> > and
> > > see if/where they break in a week or two, and (depending on how it
> does)
> > > start preparing RCs in a month or maybe two. So, let's see where we
> are.
> > >
> > > Big items first. There were long debates around three big items - MOBs,
> > > Spark connector and RS groups, whether we should have them or not.
> > >
> > >  - MOBs
> > > I believe we decided that they aren't going to go in branch-1, and
> hence
> > > not in branch-1.3 for sure. We might get back to that debate and
> > > re-consider MOBs for branch-1 if 2.0 is delayed, but almost certainly
> > they
> > > won't make it in 1.3 timeframe anyway as I feel.
> > >
> > > - Spark connector - HBASE-14160 it looks like it has 3 subtasks open,
> one
> > > of which is big one (HBASE-14375) - define public API for Spark
> > > integration. From the Jira looks like active work is happening on other
> > > subtasks, but not on this one. So how's public API going? How stable it
> > is?
> > > Who would want to have Spark in 1.3 and willing to help with this?
> OTOH -
> > > who has objections about back-porting it? Has anyone been using it in
> > some
> > > real environment?
> > >
> > >  - RS groups - there was recently a thread about them, I'd like to
> bring
> > it
> > > up again and get to some conclusion.
> > >
> > > Other features which we had in flight a month ago -
> > >
> > >  - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions has landed
> > >  - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. I'm afraid the codebase has moved
> > > forward quite a bit since the benchmark was run on this change :( -
> > Francis
> > > - are you using it now? If we could have some benchmarks on the latest
> > > rebase that I think would be great.
> > >
> > >
> > >  - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs - should we
> > still
> > > keep it targeted for 1.3?
> > >  - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta, this one doesn't look like
> > it's
> > > going to make it in
> > >
> > > As a new item on my list - I'm looking forward to see more of
> HBASE-15492
> > > (memory optimizations) subtasks to go in branch-1.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm starting a push at work to get us up on 1.2. Assuming that
> happens
> > > > later this year I think that will be the end of my close attention to
> > > 0.98.
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 26, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> In the meantime those of us running HBase in production would
> > benefit
> > > > from
> > > > >> fairly frequent minor releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1. Having to look back to 0.98 to get some new feature is
> > problematic.
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I disagree. We have agreed that 2.0 will have a new assignement
> > > > manager.
> > > > >>> There's a lot of work that has been done on getting that
in, so
> far
> > > > there
> > > > >>> are no benefits to the end user from all that work. We should
> stick
> > > > with
> > > > >>> the plan and release 2.0 when it's ready.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Stephen Jiang <
> > > > syuanjiangdev@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks for Mikhail for taking the 1.3 RM role.  Looks
like we
> > have a
> > > > >> lot
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>> new things in 1.3 release.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Based on the experience of 1.1 and 1.2 release, it takes
a lot
> of
> > > > >> efforts
> > > > >>>> to get a stable minor release out.  From this, I have
my own
> > 2-cents
> > > > on
> > > > >>> 1.4
> > > > >>>> release.  The plan is to have 2.0 release during summer
time of
> > this
> > > > >> year
> > > > >>>> (yeah, *this year).  * Given the limited time and resource,
> after
> > > 1.3
> > > > >>>> release, instead of spending effort on 1.4 release, the
> community
> > > > >> should
> > > > >>>> focus on stabilizing master (or branch-2, not exist as
of now)
> > > branch
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>>> make 2.0 release a priority.  2.0 release would bring
more
> values
> > to
> > > > >>>> customer  & move towards maturity of HBASE product.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>> Stephen
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Created an umbrella jira for 1.3 release - HBASE-15341
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> So it looks like we may have 1.4 release before 2.0
is out? I
> > tried
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>> add
> > > > >>>>> 1.4 version in jira so we can keep it in branch-1
poms but I
> > > > >> couldn't -
> > > > >>>>> looks like I don't have permissions?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -Mikhail
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurtell@apache.org
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The guy we had looking at streaming replication
moved on and
> > > > >> there's
> > > > >>> no
> > > > >>>>>> immediate plans to take on the work, FWIW
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Matteo Bertozzi
<
> > > > >>>>> theo.bertozzi@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I was shooting for summer for hbase 2.0,
the main problem is
> > that
> > > > >>>> there
> > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>> still no code for the new AM or for fs changes,
which are the
> > two
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>>> may
> > > > >>>>>>> impact compatibility (working slowly on that).
Streaming
> > > > >>> replication
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> others seems compatible enough but no code
there too.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Matteo
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Mikhail
Antonov <
> > > > >>>> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Agreed. I just meant - readiness of 2.0
is something
> affecting
> > > > >>>>>> decisions
> > > > >>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>> whether or not to backport mobs to branch-1
(which is itself
> > > > >>>> separate
> > > > >>>>>>>> thread).
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> -Mikhail
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sean
Busbey <
> > > > >>> busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:21 PM,
Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > >>>>>> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> - "Shouldn't we rather try to
get 2.0 release out and have
> > > > >>>> mobs
> > > > >>>>>>>> there".
> > > > >>>>>>>>> -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> So how far do we feel 2.0 release
is?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 2.0 readiness probably deserves its
own [DISCUSS] thread,
> but
> > > > >>>> we're
> > > > >>>>>> now
> > > > >>>>>>>>> past a year since the HBase 1.0.0
release, so I hope it's
> > > > >> soon.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Michael Antonov
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>   - Andy
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by
hitting back. -
> > > Piet
> > > > >>>> Hein
> > > > >>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>> Michael Antonov
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   - Andy
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
-
> Piet
> > > Hein
> > > > >> (via Tom White)
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael Antonov
> > >
> >
>

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