It is not only about satisfying me, as a community we need to make sure that we are all on the same page before actually moving forward, or at least we should know what is the actual pivot point.
I did not pose a quiz for you, there are just 4 technical questions. You strongly disagree that the test proposed by me is for HBASE-18070 and keep saying that the problem can be solved by 'HedgeRead', then I think it is valid for me to ask what do you think about what problems can be solved by the 'HedgeRead' and what can be solved by HBASE-18070? If this is not well understood by all, later someone may remove this benefit of HBASE-18070 and you will approve it and make HBASE-18070 useless. That's why I proposed we add this explicitly to the design doc, to at least let all the developers know this. Thanks. Stack <st...@duboce.net> 于2020年11月19日周四 下午1:43写道： > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:03 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > OK, let me explain the technical part. > > > > What I proposed in the test is to verify that we could distribute the > load > > across all the meta so we could benefit if the main replica is f**ked up. > > But then stack said this has already been solved by the old read replicas > > feature. Maybe in the first place I did not speak clearly enough but > later > > I spoke clearly that I was talking about the distribution of the load for > > the meta table, but stack still does not agree and insist that I was > > talking about hedge read. > > > > For me, I do not think hedge read can fully solve the 'primary region > > f**ked up' problem. Of course we will go to secondary replicas if the > > primary can not respond, but it usually means the primary replica is not > in > > a good state. The region server in a cluster will not go to the secondary > > replicas to read right? If the primary replica is unavailable, a failure > of > > meta read could crash a region server. And it could also affect write > > requests to meta, which could cause serious problems on master too. I've > > implemented a lot of procedures on 2.x, usually we will just abort master > > if there is a failure when accessing meta. This means, in the old hedge > > read mode, if the primary replica has been f**ked up, the cluster will > not > > be in a good state, finally the test will fail. > > > > And I think HBASE-18070 can solve the problem. But the main developer > seems > > to have a different opinion on this. So I asked him what are his opinion > on > > the 4 questions on jira, but so far I do not get a response from him yet. > > > > Why I do not want to write the above explanation before is that, if I > > throw this out, the main developer could easily say that 'yes I agree > with > > you, this is my point', to simply let the vote process to pass. But the > > actual issue will be covered as he never speaks out his own opinion, and > > may cause trouble in the future. > > > > > The veto seems to pivot on whether I, a co-author, knows what the feature I > co-designed and co-wrote does. He has posed a quiz for me to fill out that > I am to answer to his satisfaction even though my co-author has already > answered his questionnaire. > > I suggest that the vote be on the feature rather than my responses to a > questionnaire of Duo's making. > > S > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> 于2020年11月19日周四 上午10:23写道： > > > > > That's not how a technical veto works. The burden to explain how the > > > contributors can fix the reason for the veto is on you. You need to > give > > a > > > list of action items. "Fundamental of the issue" is just your opinion. > > > Nobody here is a Boss. Contributors don't have to satisfy your > (nebulous) > > > requirements, you have to successfully argue your point. > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:10 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thank you Andrew. I think my last comment clearly describe the two > > > > questions given by you. > > > > > > > > A clear and compelling reason why the proposed change is harmful or > > > > > undesirable > > > > > > > > > > > > It is about the fundamental of this issue. Due to the back and forth > on > > > how > > > > a test could used to verify the feature, I'm concerned whether the > main > > > > developer has the same opinion on the problems we want to solve for > > this > > > > issue. This is a very critical problem, as if we can not even reach > an > > > > agreement on what to solve, I do not think we should allow the merge > of > > > the > > > > branch. > > > > > > > > One or more clear and specific action items which would allow the > > > > > contributors to cure the reason for the veto > > > > > > > > > > > > This is also very very clear even before we started this vote > thread? I > > > > asked 4 technical questions and waited for an answer, but seems the > > main > > > > developer refused to answer the questions and let me to read the > design > > > doc > > > > of all the related issues. The design doc is not all written by him > so > > I > > > do > > > > not think this is a constructive suggestion to solve the concerns > here. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> 于2020年11月19日周四 上午4:27写道： > > > > > > > > > Pause a moment Huaxiang and give some time for the PMC to talk in > > > > > private a bit. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:44 PM Huaxiang Sun < > huaxiang...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This vote passed 24 hours deadline. We got 5 +1s and 1 -1. What > is > > > the > > > > > path > > > > > > to move forward? Anything we (as feature developers) can do to > > revert > > > > the > > > > > > -1? > > > > > > As it blocks 2.4 release, I think we need a decision asap. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Huaxiang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 8:46 AM Andrew Purtell < > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me refer you to the Foundation guidance on voting: > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html , and > specifically > > > the > > > > > > > section on vetos: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks > > by a > > > > -1 > > > > > vote > > > > > > > by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be > > > > > overruled > > > > > > > nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless > withdrawn > > by > > > > > their > > > > > > > casters. To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they > must > > > be > > > > > > > accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change > > is > > > > bad > > > > > > > (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, > > *etc.* > > > > ). A > > > > > > > veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight. > > > > > > > The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'capricious' as a > sudden, > > > > > > > unpredictable, and impulsive act > > > > > > > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caprice>. To guard > > > > against > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > kind of chaos in voting on technical matters, a technical veto > > must > > > > > have a > > > > > > > clear and compelling reason. Neither on the earlier thread nor > > the > > > > > JIRA is > > > > > > > a clear and compelling concern about the to-be-merged feature, > > > > clearly > > > > > > > communicated. A technical veto must also be accompanied with > > clear > > > > and > > > > > > > actionable feedback for the contributors, which in my view is > > also > > > > > absent. > > > > > > > A veto because one participant in the discussion does not > > > understand > > > > > the > > > > > > > change or its motivation, or simply expresses an opinion that > it > > is > > > > not > > > > > > > ideal and/or needed, is not a valid reason for a technical veto > > and > > > > > > > certainly does not provide actionable guidance for curing the > > veto. > > > > The > > > > > > > burden of the technical veto is not on the contributors to > > convince > > > > the > > > > > > > vetoing voter; the burden of proof is on the vetoing voter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, as things stand the veto here is not yet valid but > > can > > > be > > > > > made > > > > > > > valid by offering the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - A clear and compelling reason why the proposed change is > > > harmful > > > > > or > > > > > > > undesirable > > > > > > > - One or more clear and specific action items which would > > allow > > > > the > > > > > > > contributors to cure the reason for the veto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, the veto should be given no weight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To explain further my reason for concern, I have reviewed the > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > thread and JIRA in question here and the reason given for veto > > > seems > > > > > to me > > > > > > > a relatively minor technical matter that can easily be cured, > to > > > the > > > > > extent > > > > > > > it has been described (the reason is somewhat unclear), with a > > > simple > > > > > and > > > > > > > straightforward follow up. There is no blocking functional, > > > > > performance, > > > > > > > regression, or security related reason. However we have a > repeat > > > of a > > > > > > > pattern of disagreement related to a personal problem between > two > > > > > > > participants in the discussion, including the vetoing voter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:03 PM Andrew Purtell < > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am concerned this is not a valid technical veto and it’s > time > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > > PMC to take a more active role. This is poison to > collaboration > > > and > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > affecting multiple people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 2020, at 5:43 PM, 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, bring my -1 from the HEAD-UP thread, this is a veto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My concerns have not been fully resolved. Let's work it out > > on > > > > > jira. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clara xiong <clarax98...@gmail.com> 于2020年11月18日周三 > 上午1:51写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:49 AM Huaxiang Sun < > > > > > huaxiang...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> +1 > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Bharath Vissapragada < > > > > > > > > >> bhara...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>> +1. Reviewed the design doc and the consolidated patch, > > > great > > > > > > > > >>> improvement, > > > > > > > > >>>> thanks for putting this together. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:09 AM Stack <st...@duboce.net > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> +1 > > > > > > > > >>>>> S > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:43 AM Stack < > st...@duboce.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please VOTE on whether to merge HBASE-18070 feature > > branch > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> master > > > > > > > > >>>> (and > > > > > > > > >>>>>> HBASE-18070.branch-2 to branch-2). The VOTE runs for > 24 > > > > > hours. The > > > > > > > > >>>>> majority > > > > > > > > >>>>>> prevails (+ or -). > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Quoting the design lead-in: > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Read Replicas on the hbase:meta Table currently only > > does > > > > > > > primitive > > > > > > > > >>>> read > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of the primary’s hfiles refreshing every > (configurable) > > N > > > > > seconds. > > > > > > > > >>> This > > > > > > > > >>>>>> issue is about making it so we can do the Async WAL > > > > > Replication > > > > > > > > >>>>>> < > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_asnyc_wal_replication > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ability, > > > > > > > > >>>>>> currently only available for user-space Tables, > against > > > the > > > > > > > > >>> hbase:meta > > > > > > > > >>>>>> system Tables too; i.e. the primary replica pushes > edits > > > to > > > > > its > > > > > > > > >>>> Replicas > > > > > > > > >>>>> so > > > > > > > > >>>>>> they run much closer to the primaries’ state. If > clients > > > > > could be > > > > > > > > >>>>> satisfied > > > > > > > > >>>>>> reading from Replicas, then we could have improved > > > > hbase:meta > > > > > > > > >> uptimes > > > > > > > > >>>> but > > > > > > > > >>>>>> also, we can distribute load off of the primary and > > > > alleviate > > > > > > > > >>>> hbase:meta > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Table (read) hotspotting. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Each PR that comprises the feature branch has been > > > reviewed > > > > > before > > > > > > > > >>>>> commit. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> * For the design, see [2]. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> * For an amalgamated PR of the 5 or 6 reviewed PRs > that > > > > > comprise > > > > > > > > >>> this > > > > > > > > >>>>>> feature, see [3]. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> * For a PE report that compared performance before and > > > > after, > > > > > see > > > > > > > > >>>>>> HBASE-25127 (no regression). > > > > > > > > >>>>>> * A report on ITBLL runs is pending to be attached to > > > > > HBASE-18070 > > > > > > > > >>> but > > > > > > > > >>>>>> runs so far show no regression with the feature > enabled > > > > (ITBLL > > > > > > > runs > > > > > > > > >>>> were > > > > > > > > >>>>>> done against a backport of this feature to branch-2 as > > the > > > > > ITBLL > > > > > > > > >>> state > > > > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > > > > >>>>>> master is currently an unknown). > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Testing continues mainly looking for further > improvement > > > and > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >>> better > > > > > > > > >>>>>> understand this feature in operation. Documentation is > > > > > included. > > > > > > > > >>> There > > > > > > > > >>>>> are > > > > > > > > >>>>>> some follow-ons that have been identified but these > can > > > land > > > > > > > later. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks and thanks to all who contributed to this > > feature; > > > > the > > > > > > > > >>> reviewers > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and the testers in particular. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> S > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_asnyc_wal_replication > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jJWVc-idHhhgL4KDRpjMsQJKCl_NRaCLGiH3Wqwd3O8/edit# > > > > > > > > >>>>>> This patch is currently missing HBASE-25280, a bug > found > > > in > > > > > > > > >> testing. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/2643 > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > >
