See email thread 'zk connection leak with TableInput/OutputFormat (CDH3b4, 0.90.1)' which ended up with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3792
See also M.C. Srivas's comment in HBASE-3777: 'We share the same goal: with this patch, we hope to be able to scale YCSB to 50 client machines, with 500 threads per client, and see how HBase holds up.' I still think it is a advisable to integrate HBASE-3777 considering the current status of TableInputFormat and TableOutputFormat On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Gary Helmling <[email protected]> wrote: > I think changing the connection "identity" handling is a pretty major > change, and I'd be uncomfortable pushing it out in a point release before > it's had time to be adequately tested. It's not even in the 0.90 branch > yet. If we're trying to get out a 0.90.3 release sooner than later, then > it > doesn't seem to fit the bill. > > FYI, I only see one reference to HBASE-3777 on the user list: > http://search-hadoop.com/m/VYHN4QbRQ2 > > It may be solving real problems that people are having (I hope so!), but I > don't see any clamoring for it to prevent a 0.90.3-rc. > > --gh > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The possibility of HBASE-3777 creating bigger trouble than without is > low, > > in my opinion. > > Maybe we should conduct a poll in user mailing list and count the votes. > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > > Actually these two actions are related. > > > > I can imagine the disappointment among hbase users if HBASE-3777 > > weren't > > > > included in 0.90.3 > > > > > > I can also imagine the disappointment if we release a 0.90.3 that > > > contains more bugs than it fixes, it goes both ways. Moreover, > > > HBASE-3777 wasn't targeted and still isn't targeted for 0.90.3, so I > > > don't see how even if someone paid attention to the jira they would > > > expect to see it in 0.90.3 > > > > > > I'd like to state that I'm not trying to discredit the work that was > > > done in that Jira, it was a perfect example of open source > > > collaboration, but I'm rather trying to point out that it's a big > > > change and that the bigger the change the better the chances are that > > > there will be bugs lurking in it. You could easily list big patches > > > that were committed to point releases in the past and I would agree > > > with you that this is something we've done, but I can also recall a > > > number of those changes that introduced more bugs and even made some > > > releases unusable (like 0.20.4). Let's try to learn from our errors. > > > > > > Finally, even if it's not in 0.90.3, the fact that a backport be made > > > available means that people can patch it in themselves or that other > > > distros can decide to include it (like in the next CDH3 update). And > > > finally we could do a 0.90.4 with it. > > > > > > J-D > > > > > >
