hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: Moving 2.0 forward
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:07:52 GMT
Some notes on progress toward hbase2.

Given that stability and performance are NOT emergent behaviors but rather
projects unto themselves, my thought is that we commit all that we've
agreed as core for hbase2 (see [1]), branch, and then work on stabilizing
and perf rather than do stabilize, commit, and then branch. What this means
in practice is that for features like Inmemory Compaction, we commit it
defaulted 'on' ("BASIC" mode) which is what we want in hbase2. Should it
prove problematic under test, we disable it before release.

Are folks good w/ this mode? I ask because, in a few issues there are
requests for proof that a master feature is 'stable' before commit. This is
normally a healthy request only in master's case, it is hard to demonstrate
stability given its current state.

Other outstanding issues such as decisions about whether master hosts
system tables only (by default), I'm thinking, we can work out post branch
in alpha/betas before release.

The awkward item is the long-pole Assignment Manager. This is an
all-or-nothing affair. Here we are switching in a new Master core. While I
think it fine that AMv2 is incomplete come branch time, those of us working
on the new AM still need to demonstrate to you all that it basically viable.

The point-of-no-return is commit of the patch in HBASE-14614. HBASE-14614
(AMv2) is coming close to passing all unit tests. We'll spend some time
running it on a cluster to make sure it fundamentally sound and will report
back on our experience. There has been an ask for some dev doc and
low-levels on how it works (in progress). Let satisfaction of these
requests be blockers on commit. We'll put the HBASE-14614 commit up for a
vote on dev list given its import.

Branch will happen after HBASE-14614 goes in (or its rejection) with our
first alpha soon after. Its looking like a week or two at least given how
things have been going up to this.

I intend to start in on hbase2 stability/perf projects after we branch.

Interested in any thoughts you all might have on the above (Would also
appreciate updates on state in [1] if you are a feature owner).

Thanks,
St.Ack

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4
z9iEu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit#



On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

>
> Stack wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Josh Elser<elserj@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for pulling in the FS Quotas work, Stack. I'm trying to cross the
>>> last T's and dot the last I's.
>>>
>>> The biggest thing I know I need to do still is to write a new chapter to
>>> the book. After that, I'd start entertaining larger reviews/discussions
>>> to
>>> merge the feature into master. Anyone with free time (giggles) is more
>>> than
>>> welcome to start perusing :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Out of interest, this could come in after 2.0 Josh? Any 2.0 specific
>> needs
>> to make this work?
>>
>> Meantime, updated the 2.0 doc 1.
>>
>> Thanks Josh,
>> St.Ack
>>
>> 1.
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9i
>> Eu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit#
>>
>>
> Nope, no need to block 2.0 on this one (given the other, related chatter).
> Would be nice to get it in, but I completely understand if it slips :)
>
> Thanks for updating the doc for me!
>

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