I dont have power to vote. But if it helps, we are running with HBASE-3777 on top of 0.90.3 from the day it was committed. The qps on one of our data centers is 50K.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Andy for your support. > Appreciate it. > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried > > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by > > > several different teams. > > > > > > This makes sense. My +1 was partly an agreement that I'd try it. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > > > Cc: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40 PM > > > Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90 > > > > > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried > > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by > > > several different teams. EG if we can verify that the CIQ workload, > > > the SU workload, and the TM workload all work with this patch with no > > > adverse effects, seems reasonable to commit. But just passing unit > > > tests doesn't seem like enough to me since it changes behavior in a > > > way that is difficult to predict. > > > > > > -Todd > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> One option is to publish the backported patch which passes all unit > > tests > > >> and 'certified' by people who play trial on it. > > >> > > >> The switch proposed by Todd is nice but difficult to implement. > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >>> >>> We could query user@ before considering commit. > > >>> > Let's do this. > > >>> > > > >>> > Objections ? > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> I don't think most users will know whether this will break them > > > until > > >>> it's "too late". Hence defaulting to current behavior, > > > and letting > > >>> people switch it if the current behavior isn't working for them. > > >>> > > >>> -Todd > > >>> -- > > >>> Todd Lipcon > > >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Todd Lipcon > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > >
