incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Johan Oskarsson <>
Subject Re: 0.3 and the OOM gremlin (CASSANDRA-208)
Date Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:55:08 GMT
+1 for getting an Apache release out there as soon as possible to show
that the project is alive.

If we can resolve the following in some way I think it's ok to push this
issue to 0.4.0:

* We should make sure that end users are aware of this bug, in a known
issues file or the readme for example, with a link to the jira ticket
and a description of how it happens and how to avoid it.
* Write up how each version is compatible with each other, as mentioned
on IRC the 0.3.0 and 0.4.0 data files would not be compatible.
* Work out roughly how common this problem will be, if all new users
will hit it the release won't really be of much use.
* Since the data files will be incompatible between versions, do we plan
on bundling an upgrade tool? If not now, when? After 1.0?


Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> So, in light of Sandeep's point, I think I would prefer to do 0.3 now,
> and try to do a short 0.4 cycle with current trunk and
>  - the sstable redesign to address OOM problem
>  - multitable support
>  - patch to reduce logging impact so we look better in benchmarks :)
>  - fsync fix
>  - r/m old get_slice and rename get_slice_from to get_slice
> How does that sound?
> -Jonathan
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jonathan Ellis <> wrote:
>> You are right.  Of course, there's no sense in making such a tool
>> harder to write than it needs to be.
>> But I don't care that strongly since I won't be writing it. :P
>> -Jonathan
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Sandeep Tata <> wrote:
>>> Won't things like multi-table support break binary compatibility anyway?
>>> We might be stuck with having to write a tool that migrates from a 0.3
>>> format to a 0.4 format.
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jonathan Ellis <> wrote:
>>>> The fix for 208 [1] is fairly invasive.  should we
>>>> (a) release another RC and do more testing before 0.3 final, or
>>>> (b) release 0.3 without these changes, and only add this fix to trunk?
>>>> Although I see the 0.3 release primarily as a means to let people
>>>> start playing with the cassandra data model, I don't know that I want
>>>> to release it knowing that 0.4 is going to be binary-incompatible with
>>>> the 0.3 data files.  So I'd be inclined towards (a).
>>>> [1]
>>>> -Jonathan

View raw message