You are correct Anoop. We need to clean the HBase 1.1.0 jars from local repository. Then we may not see this problem because the fresh jars will be downloaded from actual repo.
Thanks, Rajeshbabu. On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Anoop John <[email protected]> wrote: > This issue is not there in 1.1.0.. It might be some jar improper verison > issue? > > org/apache/hadoop/hbase/NoTagsKeyValue > at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.HFileReaderV2$ScannerV2. > formNoTagsKeyValue(HFileReaderV2.java:755) > at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.HFileReaderV3$ScannerV3. > getKeyValue(HFileReaderV3.java:206) > at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.StoreFileScanner. > seek(StoreFileScanner.java:161) > at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.StoreFileScanner. > backwardSeek(StoreFileScanner.java:478) > As per this trace itself, it is not 1.1.0 hbase-server.jar. But the > common jar may be 1.1.0 only and that is why not able to see the new > class.. > > -Anoop- > > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Looking at > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/Phoenix-4.4-HBase-1.1/2/testReport/org.apache.phoenix.end2end/GroupByCaseIT/org_apache_phoenix_end2end_GroupByCaseIT/ > > : > > > > Caused by: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.DoNotRetryIOException: > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.DoNotRetryIOException: > > java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/hadoop/hbase/NoTagsKeyValue > > at > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.RpcServer.call(RpcServer.java:2151) > > at > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.CallRunner.run(CallRunner.java:101) > > at > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.RpcExecutor.consumerLoop(RpcExecutor.java:130) > > at > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.RpcExecutor$1.run(RpcExecutor.java:107) > > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:724) > > Caused by: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: > > org/apache/hadoop/hbase/NoTagsKeyValue > > at > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.HFileReaderV2$ScannerV2.formNoTagsKeyValue(HFileReaderV2.java:755) > > at > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.HFileReaderV3$ScannerV3.getKeyValue(HFileReaderV3.java:206) > > at > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.StoreFileScanner.seek(StoreFileScanner.java:161) > > at > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.StoreFileScanner.backwardSeek(StoreFileScanner.java:478) > > > > > > NoTagsKeyValue was introduced by: > > > > HBASE-13579 - Avoid isCellTTLExpired() for NO-TAG cases (Ram) > > > > which was marked for 1.1.1 > > > > > > FYI > > > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, [email protected] < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ted, > > > > > > Tests are failing for both the branches and master branch as well. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rajeshbabu. > > > On May 24, 2015 7:21 PM, "Ted Yu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Did the test fail on branch 4.4-HBase-1.1, branch 4.x-HBase-1.1 or > > both ? > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 2:38 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I ran the tests multiple times locally and they are always passing. > > > > > > > > > > [INFO] --- maven-site-plugin:3.2:attach-descriptor > > (attach-descriptor) > > > @ > > > > > phoenix-assembly --- > > > > > [INFO] > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > [INFO] Reactor Summary: > > > > > [INFO] > > > > > [INFO] Apache Phoenix ..................................... > SUCCESS [ > > > > > 1.531 s] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix Core ....................................... SUCCESS > > > > [49:22 > > > > > min] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix - Flume .................................... SUCCESS > > > > [01:09 > > > > > min] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix - Pig ...................................... SUCCESS > > > > [03:04 > > > > > min] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix Query Server Client ........................ > SUCCESS [ > > > > > 0.469 s] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix Query Server ............................... SUCCESS > > > > [01:47 > > > > > min] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix - Pherf .................................... SUCCESS > > > > [01:05 > > > > > min] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix - Spark .................................... > SUCCESS [ > > > > > 3.735 s] > > > > > [INFO] Phoenix Assembly ................................... > SUCCESS [ > > > > > 21.070 s] > > > > > [INFO] > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS > > > > > [INFO] > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > [INFO] Total time: 56:57 min > > > > > [INFO] Finished at: 2015-05-24T14:21:52+05:30 > > > > > > > > > > The reason for failures in Jenkings might be HBase 1.1.0 jars are > > older > > > > > ones of it's RCs so getting linkage errors. > > > > > Once we remove them from local repository then it will download > > latest > > > > jars > > > > > and the tests should pass. > > > > > Any one have an idea how to remove the jars form local repository > of > > > > > jenkins machines? > > > > > > > > > > Even with -U for mvn it's not downloading the latest jars. > > > > > By the time will compare performance with other versions. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Rajeshbabu. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I have pushed PHOENIX-1763 and PHOENIX-1681 to master, > > 4.4-HBase-1.1, > > > > and > > > > > > 4.x-HBase-1.1 branches. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think one unit test is failing (IndexToolIT) which Rajesh is > > > taking a > > > > > > look. > > > > > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for cutting the RC from the 4.4 release tag. So in your > above > > > > plan, > > > > > I > > > > > > > would change step 3 into: > > > > > > > (3) Create the 4.4-branch from 4.4.0-HBase-1.0 tag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then we can commit PHOENIX-1763 and PHOENIX-1681 to > > 4.4-HBase-1.1, > > > > > > > 4.x-HBase-1.1 and master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For Phoenix master branch, and 4.5 releases, I think we can > drop > > > > > > HBase-1.0 > > > > > > > support if we think that there is a lot of overhead. HBase-1.1 > is > > > > > rolling > > > > > > > upgradable and compatible with 1.0, so users should not be > stuck > > > with > > > > > it > > > > > > > for a long time. it is a matter of overhead of keeping one > extra > > > > branch > > > > > > and > > > > > > > release vs whether we would want to support Hbase-1.0 users for > > > 4.5+. > > > > > > Just > > > > > > > my 2 cents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:39 PM, [email protected] < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Makes sense Nick. Cut the new branch from 4.4.0-HBase-1.0 tag. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> Rajeshbabu. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > This looks good except for (1) branch should be cut from the > > > > > > >> > 4.4.0-HBase-1.0 tag. That way 4.4.0 will be > feature-identical > > > > across > > > > > > all > > > > > > >> > releases. Then we'll need to go back over what's landed on > > > > > > 4.x-HBase-1.0 > > > > > > >> > since 4.4.0 was released and bring forward any patches, so > > that > > > > all > > > > > 3 > > > > > > >> > branches are aligned for 4.4.1. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Make sense? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:35 PM, [email protected] < > > > > > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks James. Sure I will run it also. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Here is my plan for the release: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > 1) create the 4.x-HBase-1.1 branch from latest > 4.x-HBase-1.0 > > > > > > >> > > 2) change the hbase version to 1.1.0 and commit > PHOENIX-1793 > > > > > > >> > > 3) Setup jenkins for the branch to run the test suite. > > > > > > >> > > 3) cut rc from 4.x-HBase-1.1 > > > > > > >> > > 4) before vote is going to pass create 4.4-HBase-1.1 > branch > > > for > > > > > > 4.4.x > > > > > > >> bug > > > > > > >> > > fix releases. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > Rajeshbabu. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:52 PM, James Taylor < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Rajeshbabu, > > > > > > >> > > > Sounds good. Probably a good idea to run our perf > > regression > > > > > suite > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > get an idea of performance too. I'm fine with a release, > > > > though. > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > James > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:09 AM, [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > James, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I have installed HBase 1.1.0 with > > phoenix-4.4.0-HBase-1.0 > > > > rc1 > > > > > + > > > > > > >> > > > > PHOENIX-1763 patch at server side. Created > > > > > > tables,indexes,uploaded > > > > > > >> > data > > > > > > >> > > > > with performance script from the new client and > > performed > > > > > > >> > reads/writes > > > > > > >> > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > > all old clients of versions 4.1.0,4.2.2 and 4.3.1. No > > > issues > > > > > > >> found. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > So I feel we can release with HBase-1.1.0. Running > test > > > > suite > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > seems > > > > > > >> > > > > fine. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > Rajeshbabu. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:05 AM, > [email protected] > > < > > > > > > >> > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> James, > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> bq. Will older Phoenix 4.x clients work with the new > > > > Phoenix > > > > > > 4.4 > > > > > > >> > > clients > > > > > > >> > > > >> against an HBase 1.1 running Phoenix? > > > > > > >> > > > >> Mostly they should work. I will quickly check this > > today. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> bq. Has Andy's patch already been applied for using > > > > > > >> > > > >> the new RS interfaces? > > > > > > >> > > > >> The patch at PHOENIX-1763 has required changes after > > new > > > RS > > > > > > >> > interface > > > > > > >> > > > >> changes. > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > >> Rajeshbabu > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:32 PM, James Taylor < > > > > > > >> > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> Will older Phoenix 4.x clients work with the new > > Phoenix > > > > 4.4 > > > > > > >> > clients > > > > > > >> > > > >>> against an HBase 1.1 running Phoenix? If no, we'll > > need > > > to > > > > > > >> release > > > > > > >> > > > >>> this in a 5.0 version. Has Andy's patch already been > > > > applied > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > using > > > > > > >> > > > >>> the new RS interfaces? > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > >>> James > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:30 AM, > > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > Already HBase-1.1.0 released and we already have > > patch > > > > to > > > > > > >> support > > > > > > >> > > > with > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > it(PHOENIX-1763). I feel we can release 4.4.0 with > > > > > > >> HBase-1.1.0 as > > > > > > >> > > > well. > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > What do you guys say? > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > Rajeshbabu. > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
