Yes we do. It's one of the reasons I've spent about a lot of (thousands?) hours working on tlp-stress and tlp-cluster in the last 2 years. I shared some progress on this a little ways back. I'll send out a separate email soon with updates, since we just merged in a *lot* of features that will help with testing.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 on cutting an alpha and having a clear, documented test plan[1] for > alpha. We need volunteers to drive the test plan, though. :) > > Thanks, > > Dinesh > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans > > > On Aug 28, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > > > Regarding the dynamic snitch improvements, it's gone through several > rounds > > of review already and there's been significant testing of it. Regarding > > the token change, switching a number from 256 -> 16 isn't so invasive > that > > we shouldn't do it. There's a little extra work that needs to be done > > there ideally to ensure safety, but it's again small enough where it > > shouldn't be too big of a problem imo. Both current implementations (256 > > tokens + our insanely over memory allocating dynamic snitch) limit the > > ability of people to run large clusters, harming both availability and > > performance. It's been extremely harmful for Cassandra's reputation and > > I'd really like it if we could ship something where I don't have to > > constantly apologize to people I'm trying to help for the land mine > > defaults we put out there. > > > > To your point, I agree as a community we're lacking in an open, well > > documented and up to date plan, and it needs to be addressed. I think > the > > virtual meetings idea held at a regular might help a bit with that, I > > intend on participating there. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >>> > >>> dynamic snitch improvements, fixing token counts > >> > >> > >> > >>> they're small enough > >> > >> > >> By what axis of measurement out of curiosity? Risk to re-test and > validate > >> a final artifact? Do we have a more clear understanding of what testing > has > >> taken place across the community? > >> > >> The last I saw, our documented test plan > >> < > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans > >>> > >> hasn't > >> been maintained or kept up to date > >> < > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA > >>> . > >> Is there another artifact reflecting what testing people have in flight > to > >> better reflect what risk of needing to re-test we have from these (and > >> other) post-freeze changes? > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:52 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hey folks, > >>> > >>> I think it's time we cut a 4.0 alpha release. Before I put up a vote > >>> thread, is there a reason not to have a 4.0 alpha before ApacheCon / > >>> Cassandra Summit? > >>> > >>> There's a handful of small issues that I should be done for 4.0 (client > >>> list in virtual tables, dynamic snitch improvements, fixing token > >> counts), > >>> I'm not trying to suggest we don't include them, but they're small > >> enough I > >>> think it's OK to merge them in following the first alpha. > >>> > >>> Jon > >>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
