hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Backporting Regionserver Groups (HBASE-6721) to 1.x and 0.98
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:28:19 GMT
>>>"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 the differentiator would be "how much does it change the codebase
around". If all/most of code change is the code which is new/ignored when
feature is turned off, and by default it's off until well-tested by various
users - then it should be fine to include. In the list above MOBs probably
don't satisfy that, Spark and RS Groups probably do.

If we make 2.0 release with just Mobs and RS Groups, that would mean new AM
would have to be postponed to 3.0? What about procsV2? Although we would
want rolling upgrade to 2.0, still it's our chance to release something
big, invasive and new (since as was mentioned, the user expectation anyway
would be that in new major version some incompatibilities would be present
and some migration may be required)?

-Mikhail

On Thu, 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.
> >
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

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