Just to say that RC3 is taking a little while waiting on fixes for two issues: http://su.pr/22vilt Yours, St.Ack
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:42 AM, stack <[email protected]> wrote: > Fair enough. > > Lets try and do a fast turnaround on RC3. There are two issues outstanding > after jdcryans fixes for regressions and the jgray fix for balancer, as I > see it. I've marked them as 0.20.0 (you are on one of them): > http://su.pr/22vilt. > > If there are others, speak up folks. > > Hopefully new RC3 by morning. > > St.Ack > > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I understand your reasoning Stack. However, this project is gathering a >> lot of interest and is being considered in several (many?) places. Some >> noobs will find bugs (???) and make embarrassing and very public keynotes at >> some major conference. Some RD teams at companies considering HBase/Bigtable >> as appropriate architecture might have insufficient confidence or be >> actually burned into opting for something totally sub par but "stable" such >> as RDBMS sharding. Perfection is not required, but a known issue affecting >> stability as according to JGs analysis of the balancing issue, or which >> causes data loss as 1780 and 1784, must be fixed. I agree the rest can be >> pushed to a point release. >> >> - Andy >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: stack <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:44:57 PM >> Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download >> >> My reasoning is that RC2 has enough 'right' about it. Its radically >> better >> than our 0.19 offering, as is. >> >> The benefit is that we have a week or two less of 0.19.x and that those >> who >> only work with released software will get the new hbase earlier. >> >> I'm anxious to get us over this 0.20.0 hump -- yes, it will have known >> defects but every release we've made has had known defects? -- and to get >> the latest documentation up on our site so noobs and those whose only >> interaction with the project is via hbase.org -- the marjority? -- are >> using, finding bugs, and asking questions about the new rather than the >> old. I'd also like to get the 0.21 hbase focus started. >> >> HBASE-1794 is amusing but for a fact, replay has been broken for many >> releases now. >> HBASE-1780 is a problem in 0.19.x >> HBASE-1784 is an issue, yeah, but looks like the hadoop install is missing >> hadoop-4681? >> >> St.Ack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > There is a lot riding on getting this release right. There have been >> some >> > serious bugs unearthed since 0.20.0 RC1. This makes me nervous. I'm not >> sure >> > I understand the rationale for releasing 0.20.0 now and then 0.20.1 in >> one >> > week, as opposed to taking the same amount of time to run another RC >> cycle >> > to produce a 0.20.0 without bad known defects. What is the benefit? >> > >> > HBASE-1794: Recovered data still seems missing until compaction, >> which >> > might not happen for 24 hours. Seems like a fix is already known? >> > HBASE-1780: Data loss, known fix. >> > HBASE-1784: Data loss. >> > >> > I'll try to put up a patch/band-aid against at least one of these >> tonight. >> > >> > HBASE-1784 is really troubling. We should roll back a failed compaction, >> > not vaporize data. -1 on those grounds alone. >> > >> > - Andy >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: stack <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:21:33 PM >> > Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for >> download >> > >> > It will take a week or so to roll a new RC and to test and vote on it. >> > >> > Why not let out RC2 as 0.20.0 and do 0.20.1 within the next week or so? >> > >> > The balancing issue happens when you new node online only. Usually >> > balancing ain't bad. >> > >> > The Mathias issue is bad but still being investigated. >> > >> > Andrew? >> > >> > St.Ack >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Mathias Herberts < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 16:51, Jean-Daniel Cryans<[email protected] >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > +1 I ran it without any problem for a while. I asked Mathias if 1784 >> > > > should kill it and he thinks no since it is not deterministic. >> > > >> > > Given the latest run I did and the associated logs/investigation which >> > > clearly show that the missing rows is related to failed compactions I >> > > change my mind and now think 1784 should kill this RC. >> > > >> > > so -1 for rc2. >> > > >> > > Mathias. >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >
