Reads well. Thanks Sean, St.Ack
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > How's this sound? > > ---- > Hi Hadoopers! > > Over in HBase we've been discussing the impact of our dependencies on our > downstream users. As our most fundamental dependency, Hadoop plays a big > role in the operational cost of running an HBase instance. > > Currently the HBase 1.y release line supports Hadoop 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6[1]. > We don't drop Hadoop minor release lines in minor releases so we are > unlikely remove anything from this set until HBase 2.0, probably at the end > of 2015 / start of 2016 (and currently we plan to continue supporting at > least 2.4 for HBase 2.0 [2]). Lately we've been discussing updating our > shipped binaries to Hadoop 2.6, following some stability testing by part of > our community[3]. Unfortunately, 2.6.0 in particular has a couple of bugs > that could destroy HBase clusters should users decide to turn on HDFS > encryption[4]. Our installation instructions tell folks to replace these > jars with the version of Hadoop they are actually running, but not all > users follow those instructions so we want to minimize the pain for them. > > Regular maintenance releases are key to keeping operational burdens low for > our downstream users; we don't want them to be forced to choose between > living with broken systems and stomaching the risk of upgrades across > minor/major version numbers. Looking back over the three aforementioned > Hadoop versions, 2.6 hasn't had a patch release since 2.6.0 came out in Nov > 2014, when 2.5 had its last patch release as well. Hadoop 2.4 looks to be a > year without a release[5]. On our discussion of shipping Hadoop 2.6 > binaries, one of your PMC members mentioned that with continued work on the > 2.7 line y'all weren't planning any additional releases of the earlier > minor versions[6]. > > The HBase community requests that Hadoop pick up making bug-fix-only patch > releases again on a regular schedule[7]. Preferably on the 2.6 line and > preferably monthly. We realize that given the time gap since 2.6.0 it will > likely take a big to get 2.6.1 together, but after that it should take much > less effort to continue. > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > [2]: http://s.apache.org/ReP > [3]: HBASE-13339 > [4]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710 > [5]: http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html > [6]: http://s.apache.org/MTY > [7]: http://s.apache.org/ViP > > -Sean > ---- > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > This strikes me as a reasonable (and, err, > > surprising-that-it's-necissary) > > > request. +1 > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 on making request. > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On one of our open issues about Hadoop versions, one of the > Hadoop > > > PMC > > > > > > members mentioned that the 2.6.z line wasn't planning any > > additional > > > > > > releases[1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like us to request, as a downstream community, that the > Hadoop > > > > > project > > > > > > plan for maintenance releases on this line given the > non-production > > > > > status > > > > > > of 2.7.0, unevaluated quality of further 2.7 releases and the > > unknown > > > > > > status of a 2.8 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, there's substantial evidence from our Elliot that we > > > should > > > > be > > > > > > pushing our users from the 2.4/2.5 releases onto 2.6. At the > > moment, > > > > > 2.6.0 > > > > > > contains a couple of critical bugs that effectively prevent the > use > > > of > > > > > HDFS > > > > > > transparent encryption[2]. Now, that feature isn't needed but > it's > > > nice > > > > > to > > > > > > have as an operational alternative to our own implementation. And > > the > > > > > > current bug _destroys_ HBase clusters, so the consequences for > the > > > > > curious > > > > > > are severe. > > > > > > > > > > > > That specific issue aside, however, as a system that runs on top > of > > > > > Hadoop > > > > > > we impose on our downstream users a dependency on that project. > > > Regular > > > > > > maintenance releases are critical to easing long term operational > > > pain, > > > > > so > > > > > > we should proactively look out for them by prodding our less > stable > > > > > > upstream dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: http://s.apache.org/MTY > > > > > > [2]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > Hein > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sean >
