Jonathan, to make your community happier could you (your company) contribute all Facebook's internal patches to 0.92? I apologize to everyone who think that I was rude in my previous message.
Best regards, Vladimir Rodionov Principal Platform Engineer Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com e-mail: [email protected] ________________________________________ From: Jonathan Gray [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: HBase releases... Vladimir, I appreciate the contributions of your company and welcome your personal input around the roadmap and future of HBase. However, tying your perception of the community's overemphasis on features to the fact that you had three RS go down today is a bit of a reach. About a million different things could be the cause. And to me, your tone comes off as rude and entitled. This is an open source project. HBase is driven by the priorities of the companies and developers contributing to it. There's no single controlling entity and contributions come from all over. If you want to talk about stability, a number of applications at Facebook are running on an 0.89 based release, because those applications care about stability above all else. It's an inherently more stable version because it hasn't undergone significant code change for more than a year and every individual commit went through a rigorous review and testing process. It's not inherently more stable because of superior architecture, it's more stable because the codebase itself is so stable and has undergone so much testing. But of course, there is truth to what you say! We all agree we need to continue to get better at stability. There has been some pretty significant amounts of code change in the past year that were destabilizing but the road forward seems clear and my sense is that most of our ideas around stability-impacting architecture changes deal with decreasing complexity (like removing root) and increasing availability. Performance improvements will always be a constant. Coprocessors make extending features into HBase much simpler and less invasive. I'm looking forward to getting 92 out the door soon and 93 or 94 shortly thereafter. (wouldn't that be some shit? Release a 93 dev soon after 92 release?!) JG > -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Rodionov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: HBase releases... > > > Just today 3 our region servers went down for no obvious reason and M/R > jobs started failing after that (we are on 0.90.4 + some Ted's patch) You have > a already lot of features , could you please focus on just two of them : > performance and stability of a core functionality. > > We need Put, Get and Scan. > > Best regards, > Vladimir Rodionov > Principal Platform Engineer > Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com > e-mail: [email protected] > > ________________________________________ > From: Jonathan Gray [[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: HBase releases... > > +1 on all of this below. > > I'm all for frequent releases. Big features move to branches and the author > is > required to keep it up against whatever the current trunk is. > > And by forcing ourselves to keep features/improvements into trunk rather > than into the currently active branch, we will incentivize ourselves to push > forward new releases to get the goodies ;) > > JG > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:22 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Should we try to have more frequent, smaller releases? Maybe 3-4 a > year. > > > > I'd be in favor of this. > > > > Our 0.92 has gotten way too fat and a little difficult to land because > > its busting at seams with good stuff. It was let run too long. > > > > > For example I would almost say that the performance enhancements > > > from the Facebook guys would warrant a new (performance) release > "shortly" > > after 0.92. > > > > > > > Sounds good to me too. > > > > St.Ack
