Ted, Just to be clear, the issue isn't ZK, it's us. HBASE-2694 was a stepping stone, but the master rewrite ended up in it's own branch. That stepping stone isn't needed to run HBase properly.
J-D On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looping in Patrick who may have insight for > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2694 > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans > <jdcry...@apache.org>wrote: > >> After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it >> was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in >> production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of >> HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't >> know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those >> fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was >> generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya >> with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert, >> and starting his cluster became much more faster. >> >> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694 >> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes). >> >> What do the devs think? >> >> Thx, >> >> J-D >> >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > Second RC, new vote! >> > >> > Source binary and source tar balls are available here: >> > >> > http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/> >> > >> > You can also browse the candidate documentation here: >> > >> > >> http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/> >> > >> > Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are >> > roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of >> > IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see >> > http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2: >> > >> > HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique >> > HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not >> > being written out to SequenceFile >> > HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside >> SplitTransaction >> > >> > Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of >> > developer releases? >> > >> > Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information >> > about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this >> > 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are >> > willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release. We're >> > not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not >> > for production deploys. >> > >> > We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master >> > code has gone in. >> > >> > Please vote by Thursday, September 16th. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > J-D >> > >> >
