Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I think these are all very important experiences for our end users.
Thanks. Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> 于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道： > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after taking care > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have seen > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that stays > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of > HBASE-17931). > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times on > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10 hr. > And > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part of > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters) > > > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have been > > identified with default configs so far. > > > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient > test > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And thank > you > > for starting this thread, Sean! > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi folks! > >> > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+ > >> releases. > >> > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria > >> together over the last 6 months. > >> > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4]. > >> > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not > >> block updating on something more rigorous. > >> > >> What do folks think? > >> > >> -busbey > >> > >> [1]: > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" : > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t > >> > >> [2]: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690 > >> > >> [3]: > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge > >> > >> [4]: > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk > >> > > >
