Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2023-01-12 Thread Brad
*+1* to changing to G1 on trunk for 5.0 and 4.1.1. We have over a thousand clusters and over 10K nodes running on J8 and 11 with G1GC and memory management is excellent. Excellent. Two observations: first we reverted MaxGCPauseMillis=200, which is the JVM default. Cassandra's

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2023-01-12 Thread guo Maxwell
same with David Capwell,+1 on updating NEWS in 4.1.x and really change in 4.x /5.0 David Capwell 于2023年1月13日 周五上午3:11写道: > I am cool with updating NEWS in 4.1.1 to recommend the change and change > it in 4.2/5.0 > > > On Jan 12, 2023, at 10:56 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > > Potential compromise:

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2023-01-12 Thread David Capwell
I am cool with updating NEWS in 4.1.1 to recommend the change and change it in 4.2/5.0 > On Jan 12, 2023, at 10:56 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > > Potential compromise: We change it in trunk, and we NEWS.txt in the minor > about that change in trunk, why, and recommend users consider qualifying

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2023-01-12 Thread Josh McKenzie
Potential compromise: We change it in trunk, and we NEWS.txt in the minor about that change in trunk, why, and recommend users consider qualifying the same change on their 4.1 release. In case it's not clear from me: +1 to changing on trunk for 5.0 here -1 to changing on minor release given how

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-22: Drivers Donation Status

2023-01-12 Thread Jeremy Hanna
At DataStax, we're trying to make sure we have everything in order from a CLA perspective before moving forward with the process. The drivers have always been Apache-2.0 licensed but we just want to make sure everything is in order. We're really close on the Java driver to move forward. Once

[DISCUSS] CEP-22: Drivers Donation Status

2023-01-12 Thread Abe Ratnofsky
What's the current status of CEP-22? It looks like the CEP draft on Confluence [1] hasn't been updated since Aug 2022 and mailing list search [2] shows no results, so it never made it to a vote. -- Abe [1]:

Re: Add to slack workspace

2023-01-12 Thread Brandon Williams
You have been invited. Kind Regards, Brandon On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:31 AM kamalesh palanisamy wrote: > > Hi, > I am new and looking to contribute to the Cassandra project. Can someone send > me an invite to the cassandra-dev channel? My email address is > kamalesh...@gmail.com . > Thanks,

Add to slack workspace

2023-01-12 Thread kamalesh palanisamy
Hi, I am new and looking to contribute to the Cassandra project. Can someone send me an invite to the cassandra-dev channel? My email address is kamalesh...@gmail.com . Thanks, Kamalesh P

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2023-01-12 Thread Paulo Motta
I tend to agree with Aleksey's sentiment. Why do we need to change the default in a minor release if we already provide G1 options for users that want to opt-in? On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:46 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > Switching a major default in a minor release is way worse than doing it

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2023-01-12 Thread Aleksey Yeshchenko
Switching a major default in a minor release is way worse than doing it in a GA - less notice and visibility, many folks don’t even read minor version NEWS.txt before upgrading. Trunk is fine by me though. > On 12 Jan 2023, at 13:14, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> Ok, wrt G1 default, this is

Re: Introducing mockito-inline library among test dependencies

2023-01-12 Thread Miklosovic, Stefan
Hi Jacek, that is very good question, I will try to get back to you with the answer. Also, just before merging 14361, we noticed that we are also hitting some issues on mocking stuff in org.apache.cassandra.distributed.mock.nodetool.InternalNodeProbe which failed some other tests. I remember

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2023-01-12 Thread Mick Semb Wever
> Ok, wrt G1 default, this is won't go ahead for 4.1-rc1 > > We can revisit it for 4.1.x > > We have a lot of voices here adamantly positive for it, and those of us that > have done the performance testing over the years know why. But being called > to prove it is totally valid, if you have data

Re: Introducing mockito-inline library among test dependencies

2023-01-12 Thread Jacek Lewandowski
Will it work with Java17? czw., 12 sty 2023, 12:56 użytkownik Brandon Williams napisał: > +1 > > Kind Regards, > Brandon > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:02 PM Miklosovic, Stefan > wrote: > > > > Hi list, > > > > the test for (1) is using mockito-inline dependency for mocking static > methods as

Re: Introducing mockito-inline library among test dependencies

2023-01-12 Thread Brandon Williams
+1 Kind Regards, Brandon On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:02 PM Miklosovic, Stefan wrote: > > Hi list, > > the test for (1) is using mockito-inline dependency for mocking static > methods as mockito-core is not able to do that on its own. mockito-inline was > not part of our test dependencies prior

Re: Introducing mockito-inline library among test dependencies

2023-01-12 Thread Andrés de la Peña
+1 for the same reasons. On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 20:14, David Capwell wrote: > +1. We already use mockito. Also that library is basically empty, its > just defining configs for extensions (see >