yes it is ICV only, and most prevalent on tables that are heavily/only icv.
you can always kill -9 the RS to force log recovery and all will be well. assuming you can take the outage :-) On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > Sure. That caveat about no warranty, do not use in "production", is > on there already. And the bug is in ICVs only, right? We can release > w/ warning that ICVers need to apply the patch, np. > > Good stuff, > St.Ack > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote: >> we could yes. with the caveat that no production use/data loss ahoy. >> >> -ryan >> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I ran ycsb on it for a while and it looked ok... but we really cant >>>> ship without the fix to that bug, it has the possibility of causing >>>> serious data loss for heavy users of ICV. >>>> >>> >>> We can ship the DR though, right? 0.90.0RC1 is just around the corner! >>> St.Ack >>> >>> >>>> -ryan >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com> wrote: >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> I took it for a test drive today and tested all the basic stuff. No >>>>> performance stuff but I think enough for my vote. >>>>> >>>>> JG >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: jdcry...@gmail.com [mailto:jdcry...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jean- >>>>>> Daniel Cryans >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 10:56 AM >>>>>> To: dev@hbase.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 'development release' HBase 0.89.2010924 >>>>>> rc1? >>>>>> >>>>>> My vote is obviously +1, although we hit a bug this weekend regarding >>>>>> HBASE-3008 (for which we'll post a patch soon). Over time, the >>>>>> memstore size of regions with ICVs grows negative, which means that >>>>>> those regions can't flush and when you close them you basically lose >>>>>> all the data since the last flush (since on close it won't flush >>>>>> either). We solved this by disabling ICVs to those tables (basically >>>>>> setting the async ICV queues in the thrift servers to -1), copied the >>>>>> data to another cluster, restarted the cluster with the fix, >>>>>> re-imported the data, then re-enabled the ICVs. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think this is a blocker for a DR, as it only affects users >>>>>> doing only tons of ICVs on particular tables, but it should be >>>>>> disclosed somewhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> J-D >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans >>>>>> <jdcry...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> > The 0.89.20100830 DR branch was cancelled, here's the new RC off a >>>>>> new branch. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > As discussed, this release candidate contains a revert of HBASE-2694 >>>>>> > which means that it is back on the "very" old master. It is also very >>>>>> > similar to what we run here in production. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Sources and binaries can be found here: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100924-candidate-1/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Documentation: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100924-candidate- >>>>>> 1/hbase-0.89.20100924/docs/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Here's the list of everything I added since moving from 0830: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > HBASE-3008 Memstore.updateColumnValue passes wrong flag to >>>>>> heapSizeChange >>>>>> > HBASE-3035 Bandaid for HBASE-2990 >>>>>> > HBASE-2643 Figure how to deal with eof splitting logs >>>>>> > HBASE-2941 port HADOOP-6713 - threading scalability for RPC reads - >>>>>> to HBase >>>>>> > HBASE-3006 Reading compressed HFile blocks causes way too many DFS >>>>>> RPC calls >>>>>> > severly impacting performance >>>>>> > HBASE-2989 [replication] RSM won't cleanup after locking if 0 peers >>>>>> > HBASE-2992 [replication] MalformedObjectNameException in >>>>>> ReplicationMetrics >>>>>> > HBASE-3034 Revert the regions assignment part of HBASE-2694 (and >>>>>> > pals) for 0.89 >>>>>> > HBASE-3033 [replication] ReplicationSink.replicateEntries >>>>>> improvements >>>>>> > HBASE-2997 Performance fixes - profiler driven >>>>>> > HBASE-2889 Tool to look at HLogs -- parse and tail -f (patch #2 >>>>>> only) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Unfortunately I forgot to add HBASE-2986 like Stack asked (sorry, I >>>>>> > just figured it while reading the old voting thread). >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Should we release this as the next "Development Release"? Please cast >>>>>> > your vote by Wednesday, September 29th. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The HBase Team >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
