+1 to pushing on this +1 to pushing further on the off heaping work as a result
Slower? Hmm. For what it's worth after the merge (Monday?) I will take the result through the YCSB workload set with security active and pull out JFR trace files and GC logs. A Phoenix perf test would also be interesting, but I'm not sure how much time I'd have getting it to compile against and behave well running on branch-2, so maybe not. > On Oct 1, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> have we experimentally confirmed that wire compatibility is >>> maintained? I saw one mention of expecting wire compatibility to be >>> fine, but nothing with someone using e.g. the clusterdock work or >>> something to mix servers / clients or do replication. >>> >>> >> >> I tried it out a few times in the small: using a 1.2.0 shell to do ACL ops >> against a patched master server; i.e. a branch-1 client Coprocessor >> Endpoint works against a patched branch-2 server. More tests to follow of >> course... >> >> > > I reread the above. You were asking about more than Coprocessor Endpoint > compatibility (Pardon me; I have been a little fixated on CPEPs of late). > Yeah, seems fine. I can do load tests from a branch-1 client against my > patched master node. Ram and Anoop have also spent a bunch of time w/ PB3 > serialization and claim it compatible. This is apart from the claims by > protobuf crew that it is supposed to be. > Thanks, > M > > P.S. Just retried it just in case and seems to all work (if slow... I need > to look into that) > > >> St.Ack >> > > >> >> >>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I intend to do a mass commit late this weekend that moves us on to a >>> shaded >>>> protobuf-3.1.0, either Sunday night or Monday morning. >>>> >>>> If objection, please speak up or if need more time for >>>> consideration/review, just shout. >>>> >>>> I want to merge the branch HBASE-16264 into master (it is running here >>> up >>>> on jenkins https://builds.apache.org/view/H-L/view/HBase/job/HBASE-1626 >>> 4/). >>>> The branch at HBASE-16264 has three significant bodies-of-work that >>>> unfortunately are tangled and can only go in of a piece. >>>> >>>> * HBASE-16264 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16264> The >>>> shading of our protobuf usage so we can upgrade and/or run with a >>> patched >>>> protobuf WITHOUT breaking REST, Spark, and in particular, Coprocessor >>>> Endpoints. >>>> * HBASE-16567 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16567> A >>> move >>>> up on to (shaded) protobuf-3.1.0 >>>> * HBASE-16741 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16741> An >>>> amendment of our generate protobufs step to include shading and a >>> bundling >>>> of protobuf src (with a means of calling a patch srcs hook) >>>> >>>> Together we're talking about 40MB of change mostly made of the movement >>> of >>>> generated files or the application of a pattern that alters where we get >>>> imports from. When done, you should notice no difference and should be >>> able >>>> to go about your business as per usual. Upside is that we will be able >>> to >>>> avoid coming onheap doing protobuf marshalling/unmarshalling as protobuf >>>> 2.5.0 requires. Downside is that we repeat a good portion of our >>> internal >>>> protos, once non-shaded so Coprocessor Endpoints can keep working and >>> then >>>> again as shaded for internal use. >>>> >>>> I provide some more overview below on the changes. See the shading doc >>>> here: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H4NgLXQ9Y9KejwobddCqaVME >>> DCGbyDcXtdF5iAfDIEk/edit# >>>> for more detail (Patches are up on review board -- except the latest >>>> HBASE-16264 which is too big for JIRA and RB). I am currently working >>> on a >>>> devs chapter for the book on protobuf going forward that will go in as >>> part >>>> of this patch. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> St.Ack >>>> >>>> Items of note: >>>> >>>> * Two new modules; one named hbase-protocol-shaded that is used by >>> hbase >>>> core. It has in it a shaded (and later patched) protobuf. The other new >>>> module is hbase-endpoint which goes after hbase-server and has those >>>> bundled endpoints that I was able to break out of core (there are a few >>>> that are hopelessly entangled that need to be undone as CPEPs but >>>> fortunately belong in core: Auth, Access, MultiRow). >>>> * I've tested running a branch-1 CPEP against a master with these >>> patches >>>> in place and stuff like ACL (A CPEP) run from the branch-1 shell work >>>> against the branch-2 server. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This project goes on. I updated HBASE-1563 "Shade protobuf" with some >>> doc >>>>> on a final approach. We need to be able to refer to both shaded and >>>>> non-shaded protobuf so we can support sending HDFS old-school pb >>> Messages >>>>> but also so Coprocessor Endpoints keep working though internally >>> protobufs >>>>> have been relocated. Funny you should ask, but yes, there are some >>>>> downsides (as predicted by contributors on the JIRA). I'd be >>> interested to >>>>> hear if they are too burdensome. In particular, your IDE experience >>> gets a >>>>> little convoluted as you will need to add to your build path, a jar >>> with >>>>> the relocated pbs. A pain. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> St.Ack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On an initial pass, the only difficult part seems to be interaction >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> HDFS in asyncwal (might just pull in the HDFS messages). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have some idea how we can make this work either by pushing asyncwal >>>>>>> upstream to HDFS or through some maven tricks, depending on how much >>>>>>> time we have. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maven tricks? Tell us more. Here or drop a note up in the issue. >>>>>> Thanks Sean, >>>>>> St.Ack >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> busbey >>> >> >>
