zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Flavio Junqueira <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Zookeeper with SSL release date
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:08:13 GMT
I gotta say that I'm not super excited about this option, but for some reason I ended up carrying
the flag. To recap, I just raised this option because it seems that there are folks interested
in features in 3.5 like SSL and not necessarily in reconfiguration. SSL is important and to
take Kafka as an example, it sucks that we can't have a whole set up using SSL. For ZK, the
real questions are: 

1- how fast can we make 3.5 stable?
2- would it be faster if we have a way of disabling reconfiguration?
3- would enough users care about a stable 3.5 that has reconfiguration disabled?

It is taking a long time to get 3.5 to beta. There has been some good activity around 3.5.2
release, which is a great step, but it is unclear when 3.5.3 is going to come and if we will
be able to make 3.5 beta then. Frankly, disabling reconfiguration sounds undesirable because
it is an important feature, but I currently don't use it in production, so from a practical
point of view, I can go both ways. Whether we go through the trouble of doing 2 depends on
users interested in that option and folks willing to implement it.

To answer your question, Powell, my pseudo-proposal is kind of a funny option because once
the feature is stable, then we wouldn't need a switch any longer, so there is not need of
a deprecation path, we just start ignoring it from the first beta release. Until it is beta,
I'd say that default is disabled.


> On 17 Mar 2016, at 17:44, powell molleti <powellm79@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
> Hi Flavio,
> Generally do config options and command line args come under the same SLA as API?. I
was assuming as such hence my question. Perhaps if the expectation is that this config option
is temporary from get go then may be it is ok. The default for re-config support will be enabled
or disabled?.
> I am just thinking from provisioning point of view when people generate config options
> Thanks
> Powell.
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:12 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Powell,
> I was thinking config file and system property server side. What's your concern with
compatibility? The API itself wouldn't change, but the config option wouldn't exist in previous
versions and would not exist either in later stable versions of 3.5.
> -Flavio
>> On 16 Mar 2016, at 22:08, powell molleti <powellm79@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> Will this option be supplied via config file/args/API?. Will this option be a temporary
thing i.e what about its compatibility?.
>> thanks
>> Powell.
>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:46 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:
>> The main issue to sort out is stability of the API. There is a security concern around
the fact that clients can freely reconfigure the ensemble. If we follow the plan that Pat
proposed some time ago:
>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCANLc_9KG6-Dhm=wwfuwzNioGK70pg+iHMHPigYfJDSLf9-eq6Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> Locking the API is the main step to move it to beta. Sorting out bugs is definitely
necessary, but it isn't the main thing that is keeping 3.5 in alpha.
>> About making it experimental, I was raising the option of having a switch that disables
the API calls, not the code. The reason why that could work is that anyone using 3.5 who uses
the "experimental" API must explicit turn on the switch and enable the calls. If they do it,
they need to be aware that the API can change.
>> I must say that I haven't really looked closely into doing it, and I'm not even entirely
convinced that this is a good idea, but since Jason raised the point, I'm exploring options.
>> -Flavio
>>> On 16 Mar 2016, at 20:59, Alexander Shraer <shralex@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Looking at the list of ~50 blocker and critical bugs in ZooKeeper, only 3-4
>>> are related to reconfig. Given this, and the fact that it is run in
>>> production since 2012 in multiple companies, I don't think its more
>>> unstable than any other part of ZooKeeper.
>>> There are multiple reconfig-related bugs that turned out really difficult
>>> to debug without access to the actual system or at least to the Hudson
>>> machines where some tests are failing. In the past, Michi and I physically
>>> went to Hortonworks to debug one such issue, but this is of course not a
>>> good method, and we weren't able to arrange such a visit again.
>>> Regarding making it optional - the reconfig logic has several different
>>> parts, some would be really difficult to disable using a configuration
>>> parameter. But the actual dynamic expansion of the cluster is triggered by
>>> the reconfig command, so it should not affect users who don't invoke it.
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Flavio P JUNQUEIRA <fpj@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I suppose we could give it a try. How do other folks feel about it?
>>>> -Flavio
>>>> On 16 Mar 2016 19:52, "Jason Rosenberg" <jbr@squareup.com> wrote:
>>>>> So, you could enable the dynamic reconfiguration feature behind a config
>>>>> option, and document that it should only be enabled experimentally, use
>>>> at
>>>>> your own risk.  Keep it off by default.  Allow only static config by
>>>>> default, until it's stable?
>>>>> Jason
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>> The consumer in Kafka is pretty independent from the core (brokers),
>>>>>> that's how that project manages to make such a separation. We don't
>>>> have
>>>>>> the same with ZooKeeper as the feature we are talking about is part
>>>>> the
>>>>>> server and the only way I see of doing what you say is to turn off
>>>>>> features. More specifically, we'd need to disable the reconfig API
>>>> do
>>>>>> not allow any change to the configuration, even though the code is
>>>> there.
>>>>>> Reconfig here refers to the ability of changing the configuration
of an
>>>>>> ensemble (e.g., changing the set of servers).
>>>>>> -Flavio
>>>>>>> On 16 Mar 2016, at 19:14, Jason Rosenberg <jbr@squareup.com>
>>>>>>> So, it would seem sensible to me to have a release where all
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> stable, except where noted.  E.g. mark certain features as only
>>>> 'alpha
>>>>>>> quality', e.g. the 're-config feature'.  (I assume it's possible
>>>>>> happily
>>>>>>> use 3.5.X without exercising the unstable re-config bits?).
>>>>>>> There's precedent for doing this sort of thing in other projects,
>>>> e.g.
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> Kafka, they've had several release where a new "Consumer API"
>>>>> shipped
>>>>>>> that is available for beta-testing, but you can still just use
>>>>> older
>>>>>>> stable consumer api, etc.
>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, powell molleti
>>>>>> <powellm79@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Doug,
>>>>>>>> Is 3.5 being an alpha release preventing you from using it?.
Or have
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> run into issues with it?. In general perhaps ZK 3.5 being
labeled as
>>>>>> alpha
>>>>>>>> might not be fair, since it is far more stable then what
most people
>>>>>>>> associate an alpha release to be.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps if you do not use re-config feature may be it will
just work
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> you?.
>>>>>>>> There are many examples of 3.5.X being used in productions
from my
>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>>> ThanksPowell.
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:44 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
>>>>>> fpj@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> None of us expected the reconfig changes to take this long
>>>>> stabilize.
>>>>>>>> Until we get there, I don't think we can do anything else
with 3.5.
>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> best bet we have is to work harder to bring 3.5 into a stable
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> trying to work around it.
>>>>>>>> There are lots of people interested in seeing 3.5 stable,
and if we
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> everyone to contribute more patches and code reviews, we
should be
>>>>> able
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> do it sooner. After all, it is a community based effort,
so the
>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>> shouldn't rely on just 2-3 people doing the work.
>>>>>>>> -Flavio
>>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2016, at 17:28, Chris Nauroth <cnauroth@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Doug, I forgot to respond to your question about 3.4.
 Since 3.4 is
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> stable maintenance line, we are very conservative about
>>>> back-porting
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> it.  Our policy is to limit back-ports to critical bug
fixes and
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> introduce any new features in the 3.4 line.  This is
a matter of
>>>>>> managing
>>>>>>>>> risk.
>>>>>>>>> Jason, your question about release cadence is a fair
one.  If it's
>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> consolation, we are now taking the approach of trying
to limit the
>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>>>> of anything new introduced in 3.5 too.  That would allow
us to
>>>> focus
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> stabilization: resolving blocker bugs and freezing public
APIs.  I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> this will help us accelerate the releases into beta and
>>>> GA.
>>>>>>>>> I am new to ZooKeeper release management, so I'd like
to hear
>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>> from more experienced committers and PMC members about
>>>> proposal
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> try to cut a stable release for a limited subset of what
is in
>>>>>> branch-3.5
>>>>>>>>> now.  My instinct is that it would be challenging to
>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> pieces of branch-3.5 piecemeal at this point.  This would
>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> release line for an already resource-constrained volunteer
staff to
>>>>>>>>> manage.  I'd prefer to dedicate those limited resources
to overall
>>>>> 3.5
>>>>>>>>> stabilization.  Also, a 3.5 release in which certain
>>>>>> "vanished"
>>>>>>>>> because of not meeting some stability criteria would
>>>> undesirable.
>>>>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/16, 10:12 AM, "Jason Rosenberg" <jbr@squareup.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>>>>>> Can you say whether some parts of 3.5.X are more
stable than
>>>> others
>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> if we don't care about certain new features, is it
>>>>> stable)?
>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to cut out a version that only
has the bits
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> are stable (and release that)?
>>>>>>>>>> From that timeline, and the historic release cadence,
it would
>>>> seem
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> years away before we get to the stable release?
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Chris Nauroth <
>>>>>>>> cnauroth@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Doug,
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your interest in the SSL feature!
>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, I think we're still pretty far
away from
>>>> declaring a
>>>>>>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>>>> release in the 3.5 line.  I don't think we're
close enough that
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> offer a reliable ETA.  This is an earlier thread
that describes
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> high-level strategy for release planning in the
3.5 line:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/ADK1
>>>>>>>>>>> The next step is a 3.5.2-alpha release.  We're
working on
>>>>> resolving a
>>>>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>>>> more blockers before we produce a release candidate.
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> get done in the next few weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/16, 9:39 AM, "Doug" <itsbehind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's only been a few months, but I
was wondering if there
>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> ballpark release date for a stable version
of 3.5.1. Or is there
>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>> chance
>>>>>>>>>>>> the SSL feature would be added to 3.4.8?
Just another person
>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> that feature in a stable version. Thanks
for all you do! :)
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Zookeeper-with-SSL-release-dat
>>>>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>>>>> -tp7581744p7582136.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the zookeeper-user mailing list
archive at Nabble.com.

View raw message