|stack||Aug 17, 2009 10:52 pm|
|Billy Pearson||Aug 18, 2009 8:43 am|
|Jean-Daniel Cryans||Aug 18, 2009 8:55 am|
|stack||Aug 18, 2009 9:03 am|
|Billy Pearson||Aug 18, 2009 10:58 am|
|stack||Aug 18, 2009 11:46 am|
|Billy Pearson||Aug 18, 2009 11:57 am|
|Billy Pearson||Aug 18, 2009 12:11 pm|
|stack||Aug 18, 2009 12:20 pm|
|Andrew Purtell||Aug 19, 2009 6:59 am|
|Andrew Purtell||Aug 19, 2009 8:38 am|
|Tim Sell||Aug 24, 2009 1:10 am|
|Jean-Daniel Cryans||Aug 24, 2009 7:51 am|
|Jonathan Gray||Aug 25, 2009 4:19 pm|
|Andrew Purtell||Aug 26, 2009 12:17 am|
|Mathias Herberts||Aug 26, 2009 1:03 am|
|stack||Aug 26, 2009 7:21 am|
|Andrew Purtell||Aug 26, 2009 8:18 am|
|Jonathan Gray||Aug 26, 2009 9:03 am|
|stack||Aug 26, 2009 10:44 am|
|stack||Aug 26, 2009 11:00 am|
|Ryan Rawson||Aug 26, 2009 11:57 am|
|Jonathan Gray||Aug 26, 2009 12:07 pm|
|Andrew Purtell||Aug 27, 2009 12:23 am|
|Andrew Purtell||Aug 27, 2009 12:27 am|
|stack||Aug 27, 2009 9:42 am|
|stack||Aug 31, 2009 12:21 pm|
|Subject:||Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download|
|Date:||Aug 27, 2009 9:42:31 am|
Lets try and do a fast turnaround on RC3. There are two issues outstanding after jdcryans fixes for regressions and the jgray fix for balancer, as I see it. I've marked them as 0.20.0 (you are on one of them): http://su.pr/22vilt.
If there are others, speak up folks.
Hopefully new RC3 by morning.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Andrew Purtell <apur...@apache.org>wrote:
I understand your reasoning Stack. However, this project is gathering a lot of interest and is being considered in several (many?) places. Some noobs will find bugs (???) and make embarrassing and very public keynotes at some major conference. Some RD teams at companies considering HBase/Bigtable as appropriate architecture might have insufficient confidence or be actually burned into opting for something totally sub par but "stable" such as RDBMS sharding. Perfection is not required, but a known issue affecting stability as according to JGs analysis of the balancing issue, or which causes data loss as 1780 and 1784, must be fixed. I agree the rest can be pushed to a point release.
________________________________ From: stack <sta...@duboce.net> To: hbas...@hadoop.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:44:57 PM Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download
My reasoning is that RC2 has enough 'right' about it. Its radically better than our 0.19 offering, as is.
The benefit is that we have a week or two less of 0.19.x and that those who only work with released software will get the new hbase earlier.
I'm anxious to get us over this 0.20.0 hump -- yes, it will have known defects but every release we've made has had known defects? -- and to get the latest documentation up on our site so noobs and those whose only interaction with the project is via hbase.org -- the marjority? -- are using, finding bugs, and asking questions about the new rather than the old. I'd also like to get the 0.21 hbase focus started.
HBASE-1794 is amusing but for a fact, replay has been broken for many releases now. HBASE-1780 is a problem in 0.19.x HBASE-1784 is an issue, yeah, but looks like the hadoop install is missing hadoop-4681?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Purtell <apur...@apache.org> wrote:
There is a lot riding on getting this release right. There have been some serious bugs unearthed since 0.20.0 RC1. This makes me nervous. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for releasing 0.20.0 now and then 0.20.1 in one week, as opposed to taking the same amount of time to run another RC cycle to produce a 0.20.0 without bad known defects. What is the benefit?
HBASE-1794: Recovered data still seems missing until compaction, which might not happen for 24 hours. Seems like a fix is already known? HBASE-1780: Data loss, known fix. HBASE-1784: Data loss.
I'll try to put up a patch/band-aid against at least one of these tonight.
HBASE-1784 is really troubling. We should roll back a failed compaction, not vaporize data. -1 on those grounds alone.
________________________________ From: stack <sta...@duboce.net> To: hbas...@hadoop.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:21:33 PM Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download
It will take a week or so to roll a new RC and to test and vote on it.
Why not let out RC2 as 0.20.0 and do 0.20.1 within the next week or so?
The balancing issue happens when you new node online only. Usually balancing ain't bad.
The Mathias issue is bad but still being investigated.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Mathias Herberts < math...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 16:51, Jean-Daniel Cryans<jdcr...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 I ran it without any problem for a while. I asked Mathias if 1784 should kill it and he thinks no since it is not deterministic.
Given the latest run I did and the associated logs/investigation which clearly show that the missing rows is related to failed compactions I change my mind and now think 1784 should kill this RC.
so -1 for rc2.