I plan to integrate latest patch to 0.90 branch this weekend. Pleas share your comments if you haven't done so.
Cheers On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > Joanthan: > Your patch for 0.90 was submitted when I wrote my first email. > Actually Bright's patch for HBASE-4508 fixes the bug you mentioned by > adding the following: > HBASE_INSTANCES.clear(); > > I think we should fix this bug instead of circumventing it. > > Cheers > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ted, >> >> I've posted a version of the 0.90 .META. rebuild that doesn't require >> HBASE-4508/HBASE-3777. The failure I encountered had to do with a cached >> HConnection and a what I think is a bug in deleteAllConnections in the 0.90 >> branch. Specifically in 0.90 HConnectionManager.deleteConnection closes a >> specific connection and removes it self from HBASE_INSTANCES, a singleton >> map of instances. The aggregate version, >> HConnectionManager.deleteAllConnections, closes all the connections but does >> *not* remove the HConnections from HBASE_INSTANCES. >> >> When the running a full shutdown and restart of a minicluster, we have the >> same configuration and get a stale closed connection and get failures from >> that. >> >> Jon. >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> I have reviewed latest patch for HBASE-4508 and run test suite. >>> >>> Jonathan has made good progress in his offline .META. builder whose 0.90 >>> patch is blocked by the integration of HBASE-4508. >>> >>> rocketfuel has been running 0.90 with HBASE-4508 for 5 months. I feel we >>> should integrate HBASE-4508 into 0.90.5 soon. >>> >>> Please provide your comments. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera >> // [email protected] >> >> >> >
