hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Release 1.4.0 update
Date Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:06:55 GMT
For the performance regression analysis, we can kind of use ITBLL as a poor
man's benchmark.

Let's document the time/hardware/data volume in the release notes. Then we
can start to get a picture across releases, since this is resting we do
anyway.

Mike

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 7:06 AM Yu Li <carp84@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great to know, really good progress!
>
> It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable release
> when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to avoid
> issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to 1.1)?
> This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env here, and
> I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my ignorance
> if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
>
> bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this...
> Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
>
> Best Regards,
> Yu
>
> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
> >
> > I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and
> there
> > are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
> >
> > Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change log.
> >
> > With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will pass.
> >
> > I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at
> checkstyle
> > and error-prone analyses for important issues.
> >
> > I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat utility
> > will be available.
> >
> > Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
> >
> > > One naive question here: from the book
> > > <http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning> we will add
> > > functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions, but
> > it
> > > seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences (what
> > > main functionalities have been added) between branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 so
> > > user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
> > > add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first
> release
> > > for each branch is enough? Thanks.
> >
> > and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
> > evaluation.
> >
> > ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster once we
> > have the RC binaries.
> >
> > Anything else? (Within reason...)
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew
> >
> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > decrepit hands
> >    - A23, Crosstalk
> >
>

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