Hey ;) But I'm born in France ;) So all my settings in my computer and my GMail are in French where , is the decimal separator and . is the thousands separator.
Like 1.234,56$ in French are $1,234.56 in English. All the opposite ;) When I publish on my blog I usually make sure to change that. I might be able to change the settings for this specific file but I'm sure it's not that bad with a coma ;) I try to always add every new release in this document. So you might want to keep the link for future releases... JM 2014-07-03 10:46 GMT-04:00 Ted Yu <[email protected]>: > The google doc is so much easier to read. > > Nit: 39,40 would be written as 39.4 in US, right ? > > Thanks > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Just to clarify the numbers, it's transactions per seconds. Like for > > RandomScanWithRange100Test it's the number for 100 lines scans done per > > seconds. So the bigger, the better. > > > > The last 4 are just the time spent to perform the test. > > > > JM > > > > > > 2014-07-03 10:10 GMT-04:00 Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected] > >: > > > > > Oh, sorry. There was some formating, seems it got lost... > > > > > > Here is the Google document: http://goo.gl/1uHs98 > > > > > > Let me know if it's better. > > > > > > JM > > > > > > > > > 2014-07-03 9:55 GMT-04:00 Ted Yu <[email protected]>: > > > > > > Jean-Marc: > > >> Thanks for posting results. > > >> > > >> It is not easy to read. > > >> Can you reformat the results ? > > >> > > >> On Jul 3, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Here are the perfs tests results. Someone on the user list asked few > > >> days > > >> > ago about perfs between 0.94 and 0.98. So I have put also 0.98 on my > > >> > results here. Basically, as I said yesterday, no negativ perf impact > > for > > >> > 0.94.21. Each test run 10 times (except the last 4) and I remove > the 2 > > >> > extremes. > > >> > > > >> > JM > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 0.94.200.94.21 0.98.2FilteredScanTest 0,230,22 0,25RandomReadTest > > 808815 > > >> > 1 107RandomSeekScanTest 172169 201RandomScanWithRange10Test 286279 > 277 > > >> > RandomScanWithRange100Test 147145 161RandomScanWithRange1000Test > 38,22 > > >> 37,27 > > >> > 50 SequentialReadTest1 217 1 1991 392 SequentialWriteTest13 732 13 > > >> 39119 455 > > >> > RandomWriteTest14 091 13 64219 708 GaussianRandomReadBenchmark9 404 > 9 > > >> 435 > > >> > 10 777 SequentialReadBenchmark2 938 638 3 074 8153 335 239 > > >> > SequentialWriteBenchmark912 469 913 573833 654 > > >> UniformRandomReadBenchmark > > >> > 10 299 10 35811 762 UniformRandomSmallScan233 583 234 083277 850 > > >> > LoadTestToolreal 19m30.113s > > >> > user 37m12.300s > > >> > sys 11m19.224s real 19m26.099s > > >> > user 36m1.740s > > >> > sys 11m41.704sreal 14m40.709s > > >> > user 28m56.892s > > >> > sys 12m6.364sIntegrationTestLoadAnVerify real 4m11.269s > > >> > user 1m32.904s > > >> > sys 0m7.176s real 4m7.288s > > >> > user 1m31.704s > > >> > sys 0m6.780sreal 2m38.295s > > >> > user 1m24.500s > > >> > sys 0m6.036sHLogPerformanceEvaluation 10431,988 10629,025n/a > > >> > IntegrationTestBigLinkedListreal 6m0.125s > > >> > user 3m0.004s > > >> > sys 0m11.312s real 6m17.616s > > >> > user 2m58.684s > > >> > sys 0m10.492S real 9m9.284s > > >> > user 3m31.576s > > >> > sys 0m19.828s > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 2014-07-02 21:22 GMT-04:00 Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > [email protected] > > >> >: > > >> > > > >> >> So far performances are similar to 0.94.21. So green from my side > > too. > > >> I > > >> >> will post detailed results later tonight or tomorrow morning. > > >> >> > > >> >> JM > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> 2014-07-02 18:29 GMT-04:00 lars hofhansl <[email protected]>: > > >> >> > > >> >> Thanks Ted & Andy. > > >> >>> With my +1 we have the required 3 binding votes, will release > > 0.94.21 > > >> >>> tomorrow. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> -- Lars > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> ________________________________ > > >> >>> From: Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > >> >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:25 PM > > >> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase 0.94.21 release candidate is > > >> available > > >> >>> for download > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> +1 > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Checked md5 sum > > >> >>> Checked signature > > >> >>> Apache RAT check passes. > > >> >>> Unit test suite passed (using jdk 1.7.0_25) > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Cheers > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> +1 > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> MD5 sum is good > > >> >>>> Signature is good > > >> >>>> Unpacked tarball, structure looks good. > > >> >>>> Ran Apache RAT, check passed**. > > >> >>>> Local compile and build was successful (with 7u60) > > >> >>>> Unit test suite passes 10 times out of 10 > > >> >>>> Ran LoadTestTool, no errors, logs look good. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> ** - You have to remove docs/ and generated web.xml files under > > >> >>>> hbase-webapps/ first. Going forward I think we should release a > > >> source > > >> >>> only > > >> >>>> tarball and a second -bin "binary convenience" artifact. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:20 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected] > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>>> The 1st 0.94.21 RC is available for download at > > >> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~larsh/hbase-0.94.21-rc0/ > > >> >>>>> Signed with my code signing key: C7CFE328 > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> 0.94 development is continuing to wind down, HBase 0.94.21 is a > > >> small > > >> >>> bug > > >> >>>>> fix release with 9 fixes: > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-10692] - The Multi TableMap job don't support the > > security > > >> >>>>> HBase cluster > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-11052] - Sending random data crashes thrift service > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-11096] - stop method of Master and RegionServer > > >> >>> coprocessor is > > >> >>>>> not invoked > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-11234] - FastDiffDeltaEncoder#getFirstKeyInBlock > returns > > >> >>> wrong > > >> >>>>> result > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-11341] - ZKProcedureCoordinatorRpcs should respond > only > > to > > >> >>>>> members > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-11414] - Backport to 0.94: HBASE-7711 rowlock release > > >> >>> problem > > >> >>>>> with thread interruptions in batchMutate > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-8495] - Change ownership of the directory to bulk load > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-10871] - Indefinite OPEN/CLOSE wait on busy > > RegionServers > > >> >>>>> [HBASE-10935] - support snapshot policy where flush memstore > > can > > >> >>> be > > >> >>>>> skipped to prevent production cluster freeze > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> The list of changes is also available here: > > >> >>> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12326794 > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> Here's the test run for this RC: > > >> >>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-0.94.21/30/ > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> Please try out the RC, check out the doc, take it for a spin, > etc, > > >> and > > >> >>>>> vote +1/-1 by EOD July 3rd on whether we should release this as > > >> >>> 0.94.21. > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> Thanks. > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> -- Lars > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -- > > >> >>>> Best regards, > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> - Andy > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > > >> Hein > > >> >>>> (via Tom White) > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
