TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of HBASE-9465 on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also revert that from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by HBASE-19379. > > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why it slipped > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it was still > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will get to the > offending commit shortly. > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I went out on >> vacation. >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs and on >>> recent 1.4 runs. >>> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. Got >>> distracted >>> and got no further than this.... >>> >>> S >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Ok, no problem. >>> > >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and 1.3. >>> Waiting on >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down branch-1. >>> > > Thanks Sir, >>> > > St.Ack >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :) >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/ >>> > > > > Need to resolve it >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] >>> > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew! >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell >>> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the >>> > > > > Thanksgiving >>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > - December 4 >>> > > > > > > - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available. >>> > > > > > > - Voting begins. >>> > > > > > > - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release >>> audits, >>> > > and >>> > > > 25 >>> > > > > > > iterations of the unit test suite. >>> > > > > > > - December 5 - 8 >>> > > > > > > - 24 hours ITBLL >>> > > > > > > - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2 >>> > > > > > > - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR, >>> comparison >>> > > with >>> > > > > 1.2 >>> > > > > > > - December 11 >>> > > > > > > - Voting concludes >>> > > > > > > - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome >>> > > > > > > - December 18 >>> > > > > > > - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1 >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from >>> committing >>> > > > > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs >>> to >>> > > > > > branch-1.4. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell < >>> > > > > > [email protected]> >>> > > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using >>> YCSB, >>> > so >>> > > > > I'll >>> > > > > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as >>> complete a >>> > > perf >>> > > > > > >> comparison with 1.2. >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell < >>> > > > > > [email protected]> >>> > > > > > >> wrote: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. >>> Maybe >>> > > > YSCB >>> > > > > > too >>> > > > > > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks. >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > Great to know, really good progress! >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current >>> > stable >>> > > > > > release >>> > > > > > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should >>> we do >>> > > to >>> > > > > > avoid >>> > > > > > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression >>> from >>> > 0.98 >>> > > > to >>> > > > > > 1.1)? >>> > > > > > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for >>> product >>> > > env >>> > > > > > here, >>> > > > > > >>> and >>> > > > > > >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please >>> forgive >>> > my >>> > > > > > >>> ignorance >>> > > > > > >>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks. >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li >>> > asked >>> > > > for >>> > > > > > >>> this... >>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss >>> > > (smile). >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > Best Regards, >>> > > > > > >>> > Yu >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell < >>> > > > [email protected] >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance >>> 25 >>> > > times >>> > > > > and >>> > > > > > >>> there >>> > > > > > >>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 >>> runs. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a >>> reasonable >>> > > change >>> > > > > > log. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits >>> enabled >>> > > > will >>> > > > > > pass. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now >>> look >>> > > at >>> > > > > > >>> checkstyle >>> > > > > > >>> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so >>> that >>> > > neat >>> > > > > > utility >>> > > > > > >>> >> will be available. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li >>> asked >>> > for >>> > > > > this: >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> One naive question here: from the book >>> > > > > > >>> >>> <http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning> >>> we >>> > will >>> > > > add >>> > > > > > >>> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in >>> minor >>> > > > > versions, >>> > > > > > >>> but >>> > > > > > >>> >> it >>> > > > > > >>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the >>> > > differences >>> > > > > > (what >>> > > > > > >>> >>> main functionalities have been added) between >>> > > > > > branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 >>> > > > > > >>> so >>> > > > > > >>> >>> user could better decide which version to >>> choose/upgrade. >>> > > > Should >>> > > > > we >>> > > > > > >>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of >>> the >>> > > > first >>> > > > > > >>> release >>> > > > > > >>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the >>> RC is >>> > > > under >>> > > > > > >>> >> evaluation. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small >>> > > cluster >>> > > > > > once >>> > > > > > >>> we >>> > > > > > >>> >> have the RC binaries. >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Anything else? (Within reason...) >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> -- >>> > > > > > >>> >> Best regards, >>> > > > > > >>> >> Andrew >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning >>> torn >>> > from >>> > > > > > truth's >>> > > > > > >>> >> decrepit hands >>> > > > > > >>> >> - A23, Crosstalk >>> > > > > > >>> >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> -- >>> > > > > > >> Best regards, >>> > > > > > >> Andrew >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn >>> from >>> > > > truth's >>> > > > > > >> decrepit hands >>> > > > > > >> - A23, Crosstalk >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > Best regards, >>> > > > > > > Andrew >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn >>> from >>> > > > truth's >>> > > > > > > decrepit hands >>> > > > > > > - A23, Crosstalk >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -- >>> > > > > Best regards, >>> > > > > Andrew >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from >>> > truth's >>> > > > > decrepit hands >>> > > > > - A23, Crosstalk >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Best regards, >>> > Andrew >>> > >>> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >>> > decrepit hands >>> > - A23, Crosstalk >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Andrew >> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >> decrepit hands >> - A23, Crosstalk >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
