Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.2 (candidate 0)
+1 I put it up on a cluster under hbase and ran loads against it over last few hours. Nothing untoward in logs. Played around w/ zkcli. It seems to behaving same as 3.3.1. St.Ack On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Henry Robinson he...@cloudera.com wrote: +1 Python looks good. On 10 November 2010 14:51, Michi Mutsuzaki mic...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: +1. I ran my benchmark test on the release candidate for one hour, and got similar numbers as 3.3.0. --Michi On 11/10/10 11:09 AM, Mahadev Konar maha...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: +1 for the release. Ran ant test and a couple of smoke tests. Create znodes and shutdown zookeeper servers to test durability. Deleted znodes to make sure they are deleted. Shot down servers one at a time to confirm correct behavior. Thanks mahadev On 11/4/10 11:17 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.2. This is a bug fix release addressing twenty-six issues (eight critical) -- see the release notes for details. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 11pm pacific time, Tuesday, November 9.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.2-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick -- Henry Robinson Software Engineer Cloudera 415-994-6679
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.1 (candidate 0)
+1 I installed it under hbase cluster as a 5-node ensemble. Looks like it works like 3.3.0. Did some messing sending nc commands. No prob. St.Ack On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Mahadev Konar maha...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: +1. Ran ant tests and some manual testing to bring up a cluster and run manual commands on the zookeeper cluster of 1,3, 5 nodes. Thanks Mahadev On 5/11/10 10:32 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: +1, tests pass for me, also verified that nc/zktop worked properly on a real cluster (4letter word fix). Patrick On 05/07/2010 11:25 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.1. This is a bug fix release addressing seventeen issues (one critical) -- see the release notes for details. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 11am pacific time, Wednesday, May 12.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.1-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
Thanks Patrick for the detail (Support of the quality below puts us hbasistas at ease about our deciscion to bet the farm on zk making our next major release). St.Ack On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: Some background on this: In order to add new features (sometimes to fix bugs) we need to change the client lib in a non-b/w compatible way, this is infrequent, but there's just no way around this in some cases. At the server level we always ensure (and even in extreme cases this might not be possible, but so far it has) that a new server can talk to an old (at least 1 version back) client. Additionally we also ensure that a new server can talk to an old server, this allows rolling upgrade of the ensemble. WRT this approach I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know from your own/prior projects. In zk THIS IS CRITICAL to our primary project level goals of high availability. It would be laughable if we bill ourselves as highly available but sorry, you need to shut everything down then upgrade everything to a new version. That's just not acceptable. The roadmap has some detail on this, but it's out of date from our current practices. We also need to include this information in our release notes. http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/Roadmap https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-727 Stack, in your specific case you are seeing that 3.3 client works fine with 3.2 server. In 3.3 we added a new API method to the client, which sends a new message type to the server. As long as you don't use this method (getchildren2) it will probably work fine. However, we don't officially support this configuration as we don't design for this case (the changes) and we don't test for this. It may be that there was some semantic change at the protocol (client-server protocol) level, that may not be exposed except in unusual cases. Perhaps if we had more resources we could verify this case (3.3C with 3.2S) but today we do not, so essentially it would be use at your own risk. Hope this helps. If you have further insights, esp wrt HBase using ZK please feel free to comment. Regards, Patrick Stack wrote: Patrick just let me know that newer client talking to older server is not supported. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. Was sort of surprised it worked at all so just noted this aspect of my zk 3.3.0 RC0 eval. Congrats on new release lads, St.Ack P.S. Below is backup of my assertion 3.3.0 client basically works against 3.2.2 ensemble: In client log I see this: 2010-03-25 12:23:57,670 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: Client environment:zookeeper.version=3.3.0-925362, built on 03/19/2010 18:38 GMT ... Then this: 2010-03-25 12:23:57,672 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: Initiating client connection, connectString=sv2borg165:2181,sv2borg166:2181,sv2borg167:2181,sv2borg169:2181,sv2borg164:2181 sessionTimeout=6 watcher=Thread[Thread-0,5,main] 2010-03-25 12:23:57,683 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Opening socket connection to server sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181 2010-03-25 12:23:57,686 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Socket connection established to sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181, initiating session .. Over on 166 I see... 2010-03-25 12:23:57,697 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Connected to /10.20.20.185:46331 lastZxid 0 2010-03-25 12:23:57,725 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Creating new session 0x3266d5140d70759 2010-03-25 12:23:57,726 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Finished init of 0x3266d5140d70759 valid:true 2010-03-25 12:25:07,305 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Processing stat command from /10.20.20.185:60661 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 WARN org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Exception causing close of session 0x0 due to java.io.IOException: Responded to info probe 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: closing session:0x0 NIOServerCnxn: java.nio.channels.SocketChannel[connected local=/10.20.20.166:2181 remote=/10.20.20.185:60661] ... If I do stat over there I see Zookeeper version: 3.2.2-888565, built on 12/08/2009 21:51 GMT... On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: Stack, you can't use a new client with an old server. We support b/w compatibility at the server level (new server works with old client) but not the other way around. You would have to upgrade the server and client at the same time, or upgrade the servers (rolling upgrade) then upgrade the clients. Patrick Stack wrote: +1 All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and nothing odd looking. Looks like no issue having a zk 3.3.0 client talk to a 3.2.2 ensemble. Requires small mods to hbase other than dropping new zk jar into hbase/lib in place of zk 3.2.2: HBASE-2380. St.Ack On Fri, Mar 19, 2010
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.2 (candidate 1)
+1 Put it under hbase and ran a loading on a small cluster. Completed. Checked out doc. Looks right on cursory glance. St.Ack On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: I've created a second candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.2. This is a bug fix release addressing 13 issues (three critical) -- see the release notes for details. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 3pm pacific time, Friday, December 11.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.2-candidate-1/http://people.apache.org/%7Ephunt/zookeeper-3.2.2-candidate-1/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.2 (candidate 0)]
+1 Ran it in place of zk-3.2.1 in hbase context for an upload and nothing untoward examining logs. Took a quick gander at the doc. and nothing obviously amiss. St.Ack On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: Hadoop PMC, Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list. Thanks, Patrick I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.2. This is a bug fix release addressing eleven issues (two critical) -- see the release notes for details. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 5pm pacific time, Friday, November 27.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.2-candidate-0/http://people.apache.org/%7Ephunt/zookeeper-3.2.2-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
[jira] Created: (ZOOKEEPER-595) A means of asking quorum what conifguration it is running with
A means of asking quorum what conifguration it is running with -- Key: ZOOKEEPER-595 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-595 Project: Zookeeper Issue Type: Improvement Reporter: stack I'd like to ask a running quorum what its configuration is. I'd want to know stuff like session timeout and tick times. Use case is that in hbase there is no zoo.cfg usually; the configuration is manufactured and piped to the starting zk server. I want to know if all of the manufactured config. 'took' or how zk interpreted it. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (ZOOKEEPER-587) client should log timeout negotiated with server
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-587?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12781074#action_12781074 ] stack commented on ZOOKEEPER-587: - If server changes the timeout on the client, yeah, for sure at least log it. Good stuff. client should log timeout negotiated with server Key: ZOOKEEPER-587 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-587 Project: Zookeeper Issue Type: Bug Components: c client, java client Affects Versions: 3.2.1 Reporter: Patrick Hunt Fix For: 3.3.0 The ZK client should log the timeout negotiated with the server if the time is different than the timeout parameter specified by the client. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
