addendum for the compat issue + new RC would remove having to weigh
the impact when updating the stable release pointer, for me at least.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:21 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There is an addendum patch that puts it back I think. I don’t have a strong 
> opinion either way. It would not be a problem to patch and produce a new RC.
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 2019, at 10:29 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I think HBASE-21727 should be partially reverted since it removed a public
> > method in HBaseConfiguration which is marked as IA.Public?
> >
> > [email protected] <[email protected]> 于2019年2月5日周二 上午1:54写道:
> >
> >> Based on my own testing I was going to vote +1.I built 1.5.0 from source,
> >> and ran it with the tip of the Phoenix 4.x.
> >> I regularly load a lot of data, execute Phoenix queries, etc. Nothing
> >> undue, nothing undue in the logs either.
> >> I'll try to reproduce the test failures. Since Andy can't reproduce them
> >> there is something flaky, most likely it's the tests, but that's, of
> >> course, hard to say.
> >> -- Lars
> >>    On Saturday, February 2, 2019, 4:03:53 PM PST, Andrew Purtell <
> >> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks. As I am not able to produce those unit test results we will need
> >> your help to diagnose the issues. Please file JIRAs as needed, post the
> >> test output detail, etc. Thanks for trying the candidate out!
> >>
> >> The ITBLL results may be a tool usage problem. The numbers in the failure
> >> messages you posted are too round. I expect real failures to produce more
> >> irregular numbers. ITBLL can a bit hard to use. Contact me offline and I’ll
> >> give you notes on how I ran the tests myself.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Feb 2, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Xu Cang <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2 jars sha12 verification: pass.
> >>> Basic UI check: pass.
> >>> Unit test. Some failures in  hbase - server package. (see details below,
> >>> not sure if these are flaky tests)
> >>> ITBLL tests with slowDeterministic and serverKilling monky. Both got some
> >>> failures. (Not sure if this is my environment issue since I am using *my
> >>> laptop* to conduct this testing)
> >>> Not voting for now since I have some doubts regarding my testing result.
> >>> Will keep looking.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - *Unit test failure: (failures are reproducable)*
> >>>
> >>> [INFO] Results:
> >>> [INFO]
> >>> [ERROR] Failures:
> >>> [ERROR]
> >>>
> >> TestRegionLocationCaching.testCachingForHTableMultiPut:133->checkRegionLocationIsCached:148
> >>> Expected non-zero number of cached region locations. Actual: 0
> >>> [ERROR]
> >>>
> >> TestRegionLocationCaching.testCachingForHTableMultiplexerMultiPut:95->checkRegionLocationIsCached:148
> >>> Expected non-zero number of cached region locations. Actual: 0
> >>> [ERROR]
> >>>
> >> TestRegionLocationCaching.testCachingForHTableMultiplexerSinglePut:73->checkRegionLocationIsCached:148
> >>> Expected non-zero number of cached region locations. Actual: 0
> >>> [ERROR]
> >>>
> >> TestRegionLocationCaching.testCachingForHTableSinglePut:116->checkRegionLocationIsCached:148
> >>> Expected non-zero number of cached region locations. Actual: 0
> >>> [ERROR]  TestReplicasClient.testHedgedRead:595 expected:<0> but was:<1>
> >>> [ERROR]
> >>>
> >> TestFilterListOrOperatorWithBlkCnt.testMultiRowRangeWithFilterListOrOperatorWithBlkCnt:127
> >>> expected:<4> but was:<5>
> >>> [ERROR]  TestRegionServerMetrics.testRequestCount:137 Metrics Counters
> >>> should be equal expected:<59> but was:<89>
> >>> [INFO]
> >>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1870, Failures: 7, Errors: 0, Skipped: 17
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> *ITBLL testing result: (failures are reproducable) *
> >>>
> >>> ./bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList
> >> Loop
> >>> 1 1 25000000 /tmp/itbll 1 -m slowDeterministic
> >>>
> >>> 2019-02-01 23:31:03,746 INFO  [main] mapreduce.Job:  map 100% reduce 100%
> >>> 2019-02-01 23:31:03,746 INFO  [main] mapreduce.Job: Job
> >>> job_local221831554_0003 completed successfully
> >>> 2019-02-01 23:31:03,758 INFO  [main] mapreduce.Job: 175000018
> >>>       Input split bytes=679
> >>>       Combine input records=0
> >>>       Combine output records=0
> >>>       Reduce input groups=75000000
> >>>       Reduce shuffle bytes=5175000018
> >>>       Reduce input records=150000000
> >>>       Reduce output records=0
> >>>       Spilled Records=561948580
> >>>       Shuffled Maps =3
> >>>       Failed Shuffles=0
> >>>       Merged Map outputs=3
> >>>       GC time elapsed (ms)=1859
> >>>       Total committed heap usage (bytes)=1846542336
> >>>   HBase Counters
> >>>       BYTES_IN_REMOTE_RESULTS=0
> >>>       BYTES_IN_RESULTS=31125001574
> >>>       MILLIS_BETWEEN_NEXTS=934178
> >>>       NOT_SERVING_REGION_EXCEPTION=7
> >>>       NUM_SCANNER_RESTARTS=0
> >>>       NUM_SCAN_RESULTS_STALE=0
> >>>       REGIONS_SCANNED=12
> >>>       REMOTE_RPC_CALLS=0
> >>>       REMOTE_RPC_RETRIES=0
> >>>       ROWS_FILTERED=12
> >>>       ROWS_SCANNED=75000012
> >>>       RPC_CALLS=14607
> >>>       RPC_RETRIES=7
> >>>   Shuffle Errors
> >>>       BAD_ID=0
> >>>       CONNECTION=0
> >>>       IO_ERROR=0
> >>>       WRONG_LENGTH=0
> >>>       WRONG_MAP=0
> >>>       WRONG_REDUCE=0
> >>>
> >> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify$Counts
> >>>       REFERENCED=75000000
> >>>   File Input Format Counters
> >>>       Bytes Read=0
> >>>   File Output Format Counters
> >>>       Bytes Written=108
> >>> 2019-02-01 23:31:03,764 ERROR [main]
> >>> test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify: *Expected referenced count does
> >>> not match with actual referenced count. expected referenced=25000000
> >>> ,actual=75000000*
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ./bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList
> >> Loop
> >>> 1 4 1000000 /tmp/itbll 4 -m slowDeterministic
> >>> 2019-02-02 00:34:27,009 ERROR [main]
> >>> test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify: Expected referenced count does
> >>> not match with actual referenced count. expected referenced=4000000
> >>> ,actual=79000000
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:17 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The first HBase 1.5.0 release candidate (RC0) is available for download
> >> at
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-1.5.0RC0/ and Maven
> >>>> artifacts are available in the temporary repository
> >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1250/
> >>>>
> >>>> The git tag corresponding to the candidate is '1.5.0RC0' (ce6a6014da).
> >>>>
> >>>> A detailed source and binary compatibility report for this release is
> >>>> available for your review at
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-1.5.0RC0/compat-check-report.html
> >>>> . I do not believe there are any reported compatibility issues that are
> >> in
> >>>> violation of our compatibility policy for minor releases, but if you
> >> find
> >>>> something and feel differently, please file a JIRA.
> >>>>
> >>>> A list of the 88 issues resolved in this release can be found at
> >>>> https://s.apache.org/K4Wk . The 1.5.0 changelog is derived from the
> >>>> changelog of the last branch-1.4 release, 1.4.9.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please try out the candidate and vote +1/0/-1.
> >>>>
> >>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless objection I will
> >> try to
> >>>> close it Thursday February 28, 2019 if we have sufficient votes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Prior to making this announcement I made the following preflight checks:
> >>>>
> >>>>   RAT check passes (7u80)
> >>>>   Unit test suite passes (7u80, 8u181)
> >>>>   Opened the UI in a browser, poked around
> >>>>   LTT load 100M rows with 100% verification and 20% updates (8u181)
> >>>>   ITBLL 1B rows with slowDeterministic monkey (8u181)
> >>>>   ITBLL 1B rows with serverKilling monkey (8u181)
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of this testing was done with recent 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT versions.
> >> During
> >>>> the month of February I plan to perform a number of additional tests,
> >>>> including performance regression checks. As more results become
> >> available I
> >>>> will post them to this thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Andrew
> >>>>

Reply via email to