We can make it opt-in, wait one major to see what bugs pop up and we might do that opt-out eventually. We do not need to hurry up with this. I understand everybody's expectations and excitement but it really boils down to one line change in yaml. People who are so much after the performance will be definitely aware of this knob to turn on to squeeze even more perf ...
I look around dtests Jeremiah mentioned but I would just moved on and make it opt-in if we are not 100% persuaded about it _yet_. ________________________________________ From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 20:48 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. What comes to mind is how we brought down people clusters and made sstables unreadable with the introduction of the chunk_length configuration in 1.0. It wasn't about how tested the compression libraries were, but about the new configuration itself. Introducing silent defaults has more surface area for bugs than introducing explicit defaults that only apply to new clusters and are so opt-in for existing clusters. On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 20:13, J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com<mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote: Enabling ssl for the upgrade dtests would cover this use case. If those don’t currently exist I see no reason it won’t work so I would be fine for someone to figure it out post merge if there is a concern. What JCE provider you use should have no upgrade concerns. -Jeremiah > On Jul 26, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan > <stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com<mailto:stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com>> wrote: > > Am I understanding it correctly that tests you are talking about are only > required in case we make ACCP to be default provider? > > I can live with not making it default and still deliver it if tests are not > required. I do not think that these kind of tests were required couple mails > ago when opt-in was on the table. > > While I tend to agree with people here who seem to consider testing this > scenario to be unnecessary exercise, I am afraid that I will not be able to > deliver that as testing something like this is quite complicated matter. > There is a lot of aspects which could be tested I can not even enumerate > right now ... so I try to meet you somewhere in the middle. > > ________________________________________ > From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org<mailto:m...@apache.org>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 17:34 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default > > NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > Can you say more about the shape of your concern? > > > Integration testing where some nodes are running JCE and others accp, and > various configurations that are and are not accp compatible/native. > > I'm not referring to (re-) unit testing accp or jce themselves, or matrix > testing over them, but our commitment to always-on upgrades against all > possible configurations that integrate. We've history with config changes > breaking upgrades, for as simple as they are.
