On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been using it and have some concerns wrt our shaded clients > (tracking in HBASE-20331). I've been hesitant to vote -1 due to them > because the work isn't done yet. But I hope to have it wrapped by end > of week. > > Should HBASE-20331 be a blocker? > Reviewing HBASE-18792, I'm also concerned that it isn't included in > the current RC. But again, hasn't landed yet. > > HBASE-20244 looks bad, but I agree that running on Hadoop 3 shouldn't > be a blocker. Yay for the asyncfs log message looking reasonable in > the face of failure though! > > I've only been kind of half-following along for the perf saga in > HBASE-20188. We have enough info yet to get some guidance into the > upgrade section of the ref guide? > > Perf is taking time. There are a few of us at it. Calibrating understanding, expectations, and tooling has taken a bunch of time. We're making progress though. For the upgrade section, I was thinking of adding a general note that perf profile changes in hbase2 -- it will likely run faster but it may be slower in some instances -- and then refer readers to the perf chapter which we can fill in findings as we go (post hbase2 release even). Thanks, St.Ack > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, what Ashish says Umesh (and yeah, checkout HBASE-20385 for the why > > sir). > > > > Any one else given the RC a try? Its seven days now. Time is about up. I > > have two -1s, one of which I think I can overturn. Any other feedback on > > the RC? Any PMCers tried it? > > > > Thanks, > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:41 PM, ashish singhi <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> bq. signatures & sums - > NOT > >> OK > >> (md5 checksums missing) > >> > >> This is intentional I think, check HBASE-20385. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ashish > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Umesh Agashe [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:01 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] First release candidate for HBase 2.0.0 (RC0) is > >> available > >> > >> -1 non-binding (hbck with write operations disabled not included) > >> > >> download src & bin tar ball - OK > >> signatures & sums - NOT > OK > >> (md5 checksums missing) > >> build from source (openjdk version "1.8.0_151") - OK > >> rat check > - > >> OK > >> start local instance from bin & CRUD from shell - OK > >> LTT write, read1 million rows, 2 cols/row - OK > >> check logs > - OK > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Was poking around with PE on a few nodes (I forget the exact > >> > > circumstances, need to look back at this), and ran into a case where > >> > > ~35 regions were left as RIT > >> > > > >> > > 2018-04-12 22:05:24,431 ERROR > >> > > [master/ctr-e138-1518143905142-221855-01- > >> > 000002:16000] > >> > > procedure2.ProcedureExecutor: Corrupt pid=3580, ppid=3534, > >> > > state=RUNNABLE:REGION_TRANSITION_QUEUE; AssignProcedure > >> table=TestTable, > >> > > region=71fef ffe6b5b3cf1cb6d3328a5a58690 > >> > > > >> > > Saw entries like this (I think) for each region which was stuck. A > >> > > simple `assign` in the shell brought them back, but I need to dig in > >> > > some more > >> > to > >> > > understand what went wrong. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Log? > >> > > >> > HBASE-18152? > >> > > >> > Thanks Josh, > >> > S > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > On 4/10/18 4:47 PM, Stack wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> The first release candidate for Apache HBase 2.0.0 is available for > >> > >> downloading and testing. > >> > >> > >> > >> Artifacts are available here: > >> > >> > >> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-2.0.0RC0/ > >> > >> > >> > >> Maven artifacts are available in the staging repository at: > >> > >> > >> > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > >> > orgapachehbase-1209 > >> > >> > >> > >> All artifacts are signed with my signing key 8ACC93D2, which is > >> > >> also in the project KEYS file at > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.apache.org/dist/hbase/KEYS > >> > >> > >> > >> These artifacts were tagged 2.0.0RC0 at hash > >> > >> 011dd2dae33456b3a2bcc2513e9fdd29de23be46 > >> > >> > >> > >> Please review 'Upgrading from 1.x to 2.x' in the bundled HBase > >> > >> 2.0.0 Reference Guide before installing or upgrading for a list of > >> > >> incompatibilities, major changes, and notable new features. Be > >> > >> aware > >> > that > >> > >> according to our adopted Semantic Versioning guidelines[1], we've > >> > >> allow ourselves to make breaking changes in this major version > >> > >> release. For example, Coprocessors will need to be recast to fit > >> > >> more constrained CP APIs and a rolling upgrade of an hbase-1.x > >> > >> install to hbase-2.x without downtime is (currently) not possible. > >> > >> That said, a bunch of effort has been expended mitigating > >> > >> differences; a hbase-1.x client can perform DML against an hbase-2 > >> > >> cluster. > >> > >> > >> > >> For the full list of ~6k issues addressed, see [2]. There are also > >> > >> CHANGES.md and RELEASENOTES.md in the root directory of the source > >> > >> tarball. > >> > >> > >> > >> Please take a few minutes to verify the release and vote on > >> > >> releasing > >> > it: > >> > >> > >> > >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache HBase 2.0.0 [ ] +0 no opinion > >> > >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > >> > >> > >> > >> This VOTE will run for one week and close Tuesday, April 17, 2018 @ > >> > 13:00 > >> > >> PST. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks to the myriad who have helped out with this release, Your > >> > >> 2.0.0 Release Manager > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. http://hbase.apache.org/2.0/book.html#hbase.versioning.post10 > >> > >> 2. https://s.apache.org/zwS9 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >
