I think you awesome guys added so much additional testing that probably now Jenkins can’t keep up 🤣 Seems like some CI jobs timed out while still running tests after Accord got merged 😀
Jokes aside, awesome work! Huge congratulations to all the people involved! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Thank you all!! On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 10:12, Paulo Motta <pa...@apache.org> wrote: > Awesome milestone, congrats and thanks to all involved! 👏👏👏 > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 05:19 Dmitry Konstantinov <netud...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hooray! Huge thanks to all! Now, I have no more excuses — it's time to >> try it :-D >> >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 23:42, Jordan West <jorda...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Congrats all! My previous reservations (that have been addressed) aside, >>> this is an amazing milestone. Awesome, awesome work! >>> >>> Jordan >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 15:07 David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have merged cep-15-accord into trunk. If you experience any issues >>>> please reach out to me >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 17, 2025, at 12:55 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith < >>>> bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Final update: David has completed a second rebase after we reached >>>> parity with trunk on our CI, and has confirmed tests remain stable. So I >>>> expect CEP-15 to merge to trunk sometime today. >>>> >>>> No doubt there will be some unexpected disruption to others after a >>>> patch like this lands. Reach out via slack if you have any trouble. >>>> >>>> On 16 Mar 2025, at 10:44, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> To update you: the last patches we considered blockers have landed in >>>> the cep-15-accord branch. Caleb has now started rebasing the branch onto >>>> trunk. I expect there will be a few failing tests still to resolve at that >>>> point, but once they have been squashed we will proceed with the merge. >>>> >>>> There remains more work to do before release, and I will publish a >>>> detailed roadmap to Jira when I’m back in a couple of weeks. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Mar 2025, at 20:12, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It sounds like we are all pretty interested in seeing this feature land >>>> and the branch maintenance is causing overhead that could be spent on >>>> finalisation. +1 on merging, particularly given the feature flag work. >>>> >>>> Once more unto the breach 💪 >>>> >>>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 6:56 PM, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are essentially three possible timelines to choose from here: >>>>> >>>>> 1) We agree in the next few days to merge to trunk. We will then >>>>> prioritise rebasing onto trunk and resolving any pre-merge items starting >>>>> next week. >>>>> 2) There’s some more debate and agreement to merge to trunk in a week >>>>> or two. In the meantime we will shift to internal-first development but >>>>> we’ll likely prioritise the above work as soon as we can, which may be in >>>>> a >>>>> few weeks, so we can shift to trunk first development. >>>>> 3) We don’t agree to merge accord anytime soon, so we shift to >>>>> internal-first development for the time being. I’m not sure when we will >>>>> prioritise any of the above. >>>>> >>>>> Our resources are finite and we’ve exhausted them (literally), so it’s >>>>> pretty much pick one of the above. I don’t really mind which you pick, but >>>>> I won’t personally be prioritising merge after this third attempt. >>>>> >>>>> On 6 Mar 2025, at 22:01, Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hmm... I took a look at the cep-15-accord branch in GitHub, it looks >>>>> like it's several hundred commits behind trunk. Since you'll need to >>>>> rebase again before merge *anyways*, would it make sense to do it once >>>>> more, and I can publish easy-cass-lab with the latest branch? If folks >>>>> have concerns, it's easy to fire up a cluster (I do it constantly) and try >>>>> it out. >>>>> >>>>> I think if we were to do this, out of consideration we should time box >>>>> the amount of time for an evaluation and unless someone raises an >>>>> objection, consider lazy consensus achieved. >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 12:46 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < >>>>> bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Because we want to validate against the latest code in trunk, else we >>>>>> are validating stale behaviours. The cost of rebasing is high, so we do >>>>>> not >>>>>> do it frequently. That means we will likely stop developing OSS-first, as >>>>>> the focus will have to move to our internal branch that satisfies these >>>>>> criteria. >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly what this might be for upstreaming I cannot say. Personally, >>>>>> I aim to work exclusively on the branch we are stabilising. If that is >>>>>> not >>>>>> trunk, the latency for my contributions being made public might be high, >>>>>> as >>>>>> I have a huge imbalance of over-investment to recoup, and anything >>>>>> unnecessary will be deferred. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the feature is disabled, and the code is almost entirely >>>>>> isolated, I cannot imagine the cost to the community to removing this >>>>>> work >>>>>> would be very high. But, I do not intend to argue Accord’s case here. I >>>>>> will let you all decide. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please decide soon though, as it shapes our work planning. The >>>>>> positive reception so far had lead me to consider prioritising a move to >>>>>> trunk-first development within the next week or two, and the associated >>>>>> work that entails. However, if that was optimistic we will have to shift >>>>>> our plans. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6 Mar 2025, at 20:16, Jordan West <jw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The work and effort in accord has been amazing. And I’m sure it sets >>>>>> a new standard for code quality and correctness testing which I’m also >>>>>> entirely behind. I also trust the folks working on it want to take it to >>>>>> the a fully production ready solution. But I’m worried about >>>>>> circumstances >>>>>> out of our control leaving us with a very complex feature that isn’t >>>>>> complete. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do have some questions. Could folks help me better understand why >>>>>> testing real workloads necessitates a merge (my understanding from the >>>>>> original reason is this is the impetus for why we would merge now)? Also >>>>>> I >>>>>> think the performance and scheme change caveats are rather large ones. >>>>>> One >>>>>> of accords promise was better performance and I think making schema >>>>>> changes >>>>>> with nodes down not being supported is a big gap. Could we have some >>>>>> criteria like “supports all the operations PaxosV2 supports” or “performs >>>>>> as well or better than PaxosV2 on [workload(s)]”? >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand waiting asks a lot of the authors in terms of baring the >>>>>> burden of a more complex merge. But I think we also need to consider what >>>>>> merging is asking the community to bear if the worst happens and we are >>>>>> unable to take the feature from its current state to something that can >>>>>> be >>>>>> widely used in production. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jordan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 15:52 Blake Eggleston <bl...@ultrablake.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 to merging it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025, at 12:22 PM, Patrick McFadin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have my +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:16 PM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Correct, these caveats should only apply to tables that have >>>>>>> opted-in to accord. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 5 Mar 2025, at 20:08, Jeremiah Jordan <jerem...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > So great to see all this hard work about to pay off! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On the questions/concerns front, the only concern I would have >>>>>>> towards merging this to trunk is if any of the caveats apply when >>>>>>> someone >>>>>>> is not using Accord. Assuming they only apply when the feature flag is >>>>>>> enabled, I see no reason not to get this merged into trunk once everyone >>>>>>> involved is happy with the state of it. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > -Jeremiah >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Mar 5, 2025 at 12:15:23 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith < >>>>>>> bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> That depends on all of you lovely people :D >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I think we should have finished merging everything we want before >>>>>>> QA by ~Monday; certainly not much later. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I think we have some upgrade and python dtest failures to address >>>>>>> as well. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> So it could be pretty soon if the community is supportive. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On 5 Mar 2025, at 17:22, Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> What is the timing for starting the merge process? I'm asking >>>>>>> because >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I have (yet another) presentation and this would be a cool update. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:22 AM Benedict Elliott Smith >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> <bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > Thanks everyone. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > Jon - your help will be greatly appreciated. We’ll let you know >>>>>>> when we’ve got the cycles to invest in performance work (hopefully >>>>>>> fairly >>>>>>> soon). I expect the first step will be improving visibility so we can >>>>>>> better understand what the system is doing (particularly the caching >>>>>>> layers), but we can dig in together when ready. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > On 4 Mar 2025, at 18:15, Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > Very exciting! >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > I have a client that's very interested in Accord, so I should >>>>>>> have budget to dig into it, especially on the performance side of >>>>>>> things. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > Jon >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 9:57 AM Dmitry Konstantinov < >>>>>>> netud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> Thank you to all Accord and TCM contributors, it is really >>>>>>> exciting to see a development of such huge and wonderful features moving >>>>>>> forward and opening the door to the new Cassandra epoch! >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 20:45, Blake Eggleston < >>>>>>> bl...@ultrablake.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> Thanks Benedict! >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> I’m really excited to see accord reach this milestone, even >>>>>>> with these caveats. You seem to have left yourself off the list of >>>>>>> contributors though, even though you’ve been a central figure in its >>>>>>> development :) So thanks to all accord & tcm contributors, including >>>>>>> Benedict, for making this possible! >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025, at 8:00 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> It’s been exactly 3.5 years since the first commit to >>>>>>> cassandra-accord. Yes, really, it’s been that long. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> We will be starting to validate the feature against real >>>>>>> workloads in the near future, so we can’t sensibly push off merging much >>>>>>> longer. The following is a brief run-down of the state of play. There >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> no known bugs, but there remain a number of caveats we will be >>>>>>> incrementally addressing in the run-up to a full release: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [1] Accord is likely to be SLOW until further optimisations >>>>>>> are implemented >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [2] Schema changes have a number of hard edges >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [3] Validation is ongoing, so there are likely still a number >>>>>>> of bugs to shake out >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [4] Many operator visibility/tooling/documentation >>>>>>> improvements are pending >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> To expand a little: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [1] As of the last experiment we conducted, accord’s >>>>>>> throughput was poor - also leading to higher LAN latencies. We have >>>>>>> done no >>>>>>> WAN experiments to date, but the protocol guarantees should already >>>>>>> achieve >>>>>>> better round-trip performance, in particular under contention. Improving >>>>>>> throughput will be the main focus of attention once we are satisfied the >>>>>>> protocol is otherwise stable, but our focus remains validation for the >>>>>>> moment. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [2] Schema changes have not yet been well integrated with >>>>>>> TCM. Dropping a table for instance will currently cause problems if >>>>>>> nodes >>>>>>> are offline. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [3] We have a range of validations we are already performing >>>>>>> against cassandra-accord directly, and against its integration with >>>>>>> Cassandra in cep-15-accord. We have run hundreds of billions of >>>>>>> simulated >>>>>>> transactions, and are still discovering some minor fault every few >>>>>>> billion >>>>>>> simulated transactions or so. There remains a lot more simulated >>>>>>> validation >>>>>>> to explore, as well as with real clusters serving real workloads. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [4] There are already a range of virtual tables for exploring >>>>>>> internal state in Accord, and reasonably good metric support. However, >>>>>>> tracing is not yet supported, and our metric and virtual table >>>>>>> integrations >>>>>>> need some further development. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> [5] There are also other edge cases to address such as >>>>>>> ensuring we do not reuse HLCs after restart, supporting >>>>>>> ByteOrderPartitioner, and live migration from/to Paxos is undergoing >>>>>>> fine-tuning and validation; probably there are some other things I am >>>>>>> forgetting. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> Altogether the feature is fairly mature, despite these >>>>>>> caveats. This is the fruit of the labour of a long list of contributors, >>>>>>> including Aleksey Yeschenko, Alex Petrov, Ariel Weisberg, Blake >>>>>>> Eggleston, >>>>>>> Caleb Rackliffe and David Capwell, and represents a huge undertaking. It >>>>>>> also wouldn’t have been possible without the work of Alex Petrov, Marcus >>>>>>> Eriksson and Sam Tunnicliffe on delivering transactional cluster >>>>>>> metadata. >>>>>>> I hope you will join me in thanking them all for their contributions. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> Alex has also kindly produced some initial overview >>>>>>> documentation for developers, that can be found here: >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cep-15-accord/doc/modules/cassandra/pages/developing/accord/index.adoc. >>>>>>> This will be expanded as time permits. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> Does anyone have any questions or concerns? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> -- >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> Dmitry Konstantinov >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Dmitry Konstantinov >> >
