[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-20278) [DOC] include ref guide updates for HBase 2.0 HBCK

: Implemented Resolving as implemented over in hbase-operator-tools in the hbck2 README: https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/tree/master/hbase-hbck2 > [DOC] include ref guide updates for HBase 2.0 HBCK > -- > >

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-20656) Validate pre-2.0 coprocessors against HBase 2.0+

Balazs Meszaros created HBASE-20656: --- Summary: Validate pre-2.0 coprocessors against HBase 2.0+ Key: HBASE-20656 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20656 Project: HBase Issue

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-20369) Document incompatibilities between HBase 1.1.2 and HBase 2.0

Thiriguna Bharat Rao created HBASE-20369: Summary: Document incompatibilities between HBase 1.1.2 and HBase 2.0 Key: HBASE-20369 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20369 Project

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-20279) [tooling] check for incompatible environment for HBase 2.0 upgrade

Sean Busbey created HBASE-20279: --- Summary: [tooling] check for incompatible environment for HBase 2.0 upgrade Key: HBASE-20279 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20279 Project: HBase

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-20278) [DOC] include ref guide updates for HBase 2.0 HBCK

Sean Busbey created HBASE-20278: --- Summary: [DOC] include ref guide updates for HBase 2.0 HBCK Key: HBASE-20278 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20278 Project: HBase Issue Type

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

; in > >> > > terms > >> > > > of > >> > > > > HBase Java API (it would only rely on public API stuff, right?). > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The lack of folks with time and expertise makes me think that a > >&g

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

lt;bus...@apache.org> wrote: Hi Folks! Our Stack recently gave an updated timeline on HBase 2.0 related releases [1] that has us quickly approaching feature freeze for beta releases. Previously, we had a great discussion on what it takes for our hbase-spark integration to be ready for relea

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

; > > The lack of folks with time and expertise makes me think that a >> > > separate >> > > > > release cycle makes me think that's the right call. >> > > > > >> > > > > On 9/10/17 4:16 PM, Ted Yu wrote: >> > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

t; > > > > > > > > > The lack of folks with time and expertise makes me think that a > > > separate > > > > > release cycle makes me think that's the right call. > > > > > > > > > > On 9/10/17 4:16 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

> > > > release cycle makes me think that's the right call. > > > > > > > > On 9/10/17 4:16 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > > > >> bq. revisit the possibility of an independent release cycle run out > of > > > an > > > >> additional

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

gt; > > On 9/10/17 4:16 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > >> bq. revisit the possibility of an independent release cycle run out of > > an > > >> additional ASF repo. > > >> > > >> This seems to be more practical than the other alternatives.

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

gt; an > >> additional ASF repo. > >> > >> This seems to be more practical than the other alternatives. > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Folks! >

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

an Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Folks! >>> >>> Our Stack recently gave an updated timeline on HBase 2.0 related >>> releases [1] that has us quickly approaching feature freeze for beta >>> releases. >>> >>> Previou

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

alternatives. On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: Hi Folks! Our Stack recently gave an updated timeline on HBase 2.0 related releases [1] that has us quickly approaching feature freeze for beta releases. Previously, we had a great discussion on what it

Re: [DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

pdated timeline on HBase 2.0 related > releases [1] that has us quickly approaching feature freeze for beta > releases. > > Previously, we had a great discussion on what it takes for our > hbase-spark integration to be ready for release[2]. (see the summary > in the scope document I

[DISCUSS] is hbase-spark integration going to make it into HBase 2.0

Hi Folks! Our Stack recently gave an updated timeline on HBase 2.0 related releases [1] that has us quickly approaching feature freeze for beta releases. Previously, we had a great discussion on what it takes for our hbase-spark integration to be ready for release[2]. (see the summary

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Asynchronous client is available in HBase 2.0

The current pe tool, both our pe and the YCSB, are all designed for sync client, so usually there will be no performance boost since in these tests we can only use async client in a sync way. And if we do some simple modifications, such as do not wait reply and keep sending requests, no doubt

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Asynchronous client is available in HBase 2.0

@stack, sorry for reply late, sir. As HBASE-16388 said, the client threads may be blocked by only one slow region server. But a better solution for this problem is to use async hbase client. And there are many reasons to make a region server

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Asynchronous client is available in HBase 2.0

This is exciting! Thanks so much for this hard work. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Phil Yang wrote: > I filed an issue HBASE-18334 > to remove the old sync > implementation. I think we can do it in 3.0 and keep sync logic

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Asynchronous client is available in HBase 2.0

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Phil Yang wrote: > I filed an issue HBASE-18334 > to remove the old sync > implementation. I think we can do it in 3.0 and keep sync logic in > branch-2? Of course we can also remove it in 2.1

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Asynchronous client is available in HBase 2.0

I filed an issue HBASE-18334 to remove the old sync implementation. I think we can do it in 3.0 and keep sync logic in branch-2? Of course we can also remove it in 2.1 or higher 2.x branch but if we remove it since 2.0 it may be a little radical

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Asynchronous client is available in HBase 2.0

Very sweet Guanghao. Thanks for all the hard work (you, Duo and all who contributed to the async work). When you think we should move the sync client to be on top of the async chassis? Thanks, St.Ack P.S. It looks like you updated its status in this doc,

[ANNOUNCE] Asynchronous client is available in HBase 2.0

Dear all, Asynchronous client aims to provide the ability to access HBase asynchronously. You can obtain an AsyncConnection from ConnectionFactory, and then get an asynchronous table instance (for DML operations) or an asynchronous admin instance (for DDL operations) from it to access HBase. For

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

experience as RM for 0.99.x series and 1.0.x series, I > would > > > > > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I > think > > we > > > > > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for >

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

> > > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think > we > > > > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for > > > > anything but packaging work. > > > > > > > > Enis > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

would > > > suggest we do 2.0.0-alpha1 and alpha2, and one or two betas. I think we > > > should start the alpha1 release now which does not have to wait for > > > anything but packaging work. > > > > > > Enis > > > > > >>

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi folks! > >> > >> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase > >> 2.0 that aren't quite done yet? > >> > >> For 1.0, we

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

to wait for > anything but packaging work. > > Enis > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi folks! >> >> What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase >> 2.0 that aren't qui

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

ackaging work. > > Enis > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase > > 2.0 that aren't quite done yet? > > > > Fo

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

nions on how we name releases leading up to HBase 2.0 that aren't quite done yet? For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0, 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0,

Re: [DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

eleases leading up to HBase > 2.0 that aren't quite done yet? > > For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in > 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0, > 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1.0.0 ready for use. For 2.0, > cont

[DISCUSS] What are we going to call the releases leading up to HBase 2.0?

Hi folks! What are folks opinions on how we name releases leading up to HBase 2.0 that aren't quite done yet? For 1.0, we used 0.99 as a placeholder for "what we expect will be in 1.0 but is not yet ready for production use." That got us 0.99.0, 0.99.1, and 0.99.2 before we declared 1

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

t, I > > > > > think I > > > > > > >>>>> need > > > > > > >>>>> an answer about how the feature handles our common dist-sys > > > > > category > > > > > > of

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

> > > > > >>>>> problem as an (ignorant) user ;) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

ot; but now > > > there > > > > is > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> an > > > > >>>>>> attempt to walk that back. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I don't like that development of thi

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

ow > > > >>>>>> that we are trying to get a 2.0 out the door. Because this is a > > > >>>>>> volunteer > > > >>>>>> project I cannot make any demand that it should be done, but I > can > > > >>>>>> certainly look at

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

>>>>>> currency. > > >>>>>> I hope at least the fault tolerance changes can be completed and > > >>>>>> committed > > >>>>>> before we spin a 2.0 RC, and without causing a 2.0 release t

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

fy dropping unfinished work into a > >>>>>> release > >>>>>> branch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I will change my vote to -0. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

its of >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> evaluation, not simply to justify dropping unfinished work into a >>>>>>> release >>>>>>> branch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will change my vote to -0. &

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

there is some misconception of using the term "blockers" for >>>>>> >>>>>> referring to those jiras. My understanding is that those three jiras >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> blockers for the backup functionality to be mor

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

hink Stack just wants to make the list of remaining work more complete by citing that as pending work. From: Vladimir Rodionov<vladrodio...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM To: dev@hbase.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vot

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

lockers. >>>>> >>>>> We are proposing the merge at this time because of the above that >>>>> maintaining this in a branch is becoming extremely costly and not >>>>> productive for the HBase community. Realistically, we cannot have the >&g

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

rk more complete by citing that as pending work. From: Vladimir Rodionov<vladrodio...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM To: dev@hbase.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

ple of months and doing yet another > >>> giant round of reviews because the code base is a moving target. > >>> > >>> Enis > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Devaraj Das<d...@hortonworks.com> > >>> wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

he feedback incorporated thus far >>>> in >>>> the iterations of the mega-patch. That's a wrong way to go. >>>> On the separation into a backup module, again, that was reverted to ease >>>> reviews of the mega-patch, and was noted as work to be d

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

release blockers. >>>>> >>>>> We are proposing the merge at this time because of the above that >>>>> maintaining this in a branch is becoming extremely costly and not >>>>> productive for the HBase community. Realistically, we cannot have the &g

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

_ From: Vladimir Rodionov<vladrodio...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM To: dev@hbase.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017 It ignores the feedback If I "ignore" feedback, I put my comment

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

> the iterations of the mega-patch. That's a wrong way to go. >>>> On the separation into a backup module, again, that was reverted to ease >>>> reviews of the mega-patch, and was noted as work to be done later. I >>>> >>> thin

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

From: Vladimir Rodionov<vladrodio...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM To: dev@hbase.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017 It ignores the feedback If I "ignore" feedback, I put my comment - why? I am a

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

t; > > On the separation into a backup module, again, that was reverted to > > ease > > > > reviews of the mega-patch, and was noted as work to be done later. I > > > think > > > > Stack just wants to make the list of remaining work more complete by > &g

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

t; Stack just wants to make the list of remaining work more complete by > > citing > > > that as pending work. > > > > > > From: Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Monday, March

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

__ > > From: Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing > > 3/11/2017 &

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

gt; > that as pending work. > > > > From: Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

re complete by citing > that as pending work. > > From: Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing > 3/11/2017 > > >> It i

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

o: dev@hbase.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017 >> It ignores the feedback If I "ignore" feedback, I put my comment - why? I am always open for further discussions. If reviewer does not insist on a particular request - it wi

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

kers into trunk before we branch it for 2.0 which will > >> >> > > effectively prevent that release because these blockers will be > >> >> there. I > >> >> > am > >> >> > > inclined to veto. Probably we should

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

e blockers will be >> >> there. I >> >> > am >> >> > > inclined to veto. Probably we should not propose branch merges into >> >> code >> >> > we >> >> > > are trying to get out the door with known blockers. Why not do t

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

k > >> > > first? It seems an obvious question. Perhaps I am missing something. > >> > > > >> > > If we can branch for 2.0 now and then merge this, and not into the > 2.0 > >> > > branch, I would vote +1 for branch merge even with known blockers > &g

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

If we can branch for 2.0 now and then merge this, and not into the 2.0 >> > > branch, I would vote +1 for branch merge even with known blockers >> > pending. >> > > ​ >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

gt; > pending. > > > ​ > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> They are not blockers for merge - only for 2.0. GA > > >> As I said alr

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

t; > > ​ > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> They are not blockers for merge - only for 2.0. GA > > >> As I said already the feature is usable r

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

are not blockers for merge - only for 2.0. GA > >> As I said already the feature is usable right now > >> We would like to continue working on master and we would like to see a > >> commitment from community > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >&

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

ht now >> We would like to continue working on master and we would like to see a >> commitment from community >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 10, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

the feature is usable right now > We would like to continue working on master and we would like to see a > commitment from community > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 10, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> Only BLOCKERs an

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

wrote: >> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for HBase 2.0 release. > > If we have identified blockers, why merge this before they are in? > Otherwise we can't release 2.0, and it is overdue. > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio..

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for HBase 2.0 release. If we have identified blockers, why merge this before they are in? Otherwise we can't release 2.0, and it is overdue. On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello,

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

a to merge now so that >> > development can continue in master, and there is more exposure for >> testing, >> > etc. >> > >> > Enis >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> vladrodio...@gmail.com>

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, HBase folks > > > > > > For your consideration today is Backup/Restore feature for Apache HBAse > > > 2.0. > > &g

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

give people who haven't looked at the mega patch in depth >> some more time ? >> >> Cheers >> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com >> > >> wrote: >> >> > Hello, HBase folks >> > >> >

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

For your consideration today is Backup/Restore feature for Apache HBAse > > 2.0. > > Backup code is available as a mega patch in HBASE-14123 (v61), applies > > cleanly to the current master, all test PASS, patch has no other issues. > > > > The patch has gone through num

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, HBase folks > > > > For your consideration today is Backup/Restore feature for Apache HBAse > > 2.0. > > Backup code is available as a mega patch in HBASE-14123 (v61), applies >

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

. Enis On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, HBase folks > > For your consideration today is Backup/Restore feature for Apache HBAse > 2.0. > Backup code is available as a mega patch in HBASE-14123 (v61), applies > cleanly to

Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

Restore feature for Apache HBAse > 2.0. > Backup code is available as a mega patch in HBASE-14123 (v61), applies > cleanly to the current master, all test PASS, patch has no other issues. > > The patch has gone through numerous rounds of code reviews and has probably > the most lengthy

[VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017

Hello, HBase folks For your consideration today is Backup/Restore feature for Apache HBAse 2.0. Backup code is available as a mega patch in HBASE-14123 (v61), applies cleanly to the current master, all test PASS, patch has no other issues. The patch has gone through numerous rounds of code

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

t; > >>>>  -  Regarding the work on new AssignmentManager - any notes on > >>>> perf/stability testing? Are you guys running tips of master branch > >>> through > >>>> ITBLL setup? > >>>>  -  Anyone (Ram, Anoop?) wants to

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

high-level questions I > >>> have: > >>>> > >>>> - Regarding the work on new AssignmentManager - any notes on > >>>> perf/stability testing? Are you guys running tips of master branch > >>> through > >>>> I

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

erf/stability testing? Are you guys running tips of master branch >>> through >>>> ITBLL setup? >>>>  -  Anyone (Ram, Anoop?) wants to post a high-level writeup on the >>> current >>>> up-to-date state of offheaping? >>>>  -  Logical cl

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

. > On Nov 21, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Francis Liu <tof...@ymail.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Late to respond to this but I'd like to get "Split Meta" HBASE-11165 into > HBase 2.0 as well. We've been running with a version of it internally. I'll > start putting up patches soon.

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

- Anyone (Ram, Anoop?) wants to post a high-level writeup on the >>> current >>>> up-to-date state of offheaping? >>>> - Logical clock - at this point is it more like a nice to have feature >>>> than "need to be done before

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

re the features blocked or >> > affected by lack thereof? >> > >> > -Mikhail >> > >> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks for the writeup Stephen.

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

Late to respond to this but I'd like to get "Split Meta" HBASE-11165 into HBase 2.0 as well. We've been running with a version of it internally. I'll start putting up patches soon. On Friday, November 11, 2016 5:15 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: Hel

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

:15 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, fellow HBASE developers, > > > > We are making progress towards HBASE 2.0 releases. I am using the > > following queries to search for on-going HBASE 2.0 feature work items > > (project = H

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

s blocked or >> > affected by lack thereof? >> > >> > -Mikhail >> > >> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks for the writeup Stephen. >> >

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

t; > -Mikhail > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the writeup Stephen. > > > > > > See below. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:1

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

gt; On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the writeup Stephen. > > > > > > See below. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Stephen Jiang < > syuanjiang...@gmail.com&

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

Stephen. > > > > See below. > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, fellow HBASE developers, > > > > > > We are making progress towards HBASE 2.0 releases.

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

. > These JIRAs haven't been touched for about a year. > > Looks like they can be moved to next release if there is no active work > going on. > > Cheers > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello

Re: HBASE 2.0 release progress

g progress towards HBASE 2.0 releases. I am using the > following queries to search for on-going HBASE 2.0 feature work items > (project = HBase AND (fixVersion = 2.0.0 OR affectedVersion = 2.0.0) AND > resolution is EMPTY AND (issuetype != Bug AND issuetype != Test AND > issuetype != Sub

HBASE 2.0 release progress

Hello, fellow HBASE developers, We are making progress towards HBASE 2.0 releases. I am using the following queries to search for on-going HBASE 2.0 feature work items (project = HBase AND (fixVersion = 2.0.0 OR affectedVersion = 2.0.0) AND resolution is EMPTY AND (issuetype != Bug AND issuetype

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-16884) Add HBase-2.0.x to the hadoop version support matrix in our documentation

Duo Zhang created HBASE-16884: - Summary: Add HBase-2.0.x to the hadoop version support matrix in our documentation Key: HBASE-16884 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16884 Project: HBase

Re: Friday Trivia number: HBASE 2.0 JIRAs

<syuanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did some search on how big HBASE 2.0 is. Here is some interesting > numbers: > > (1). How many resolved as fixed JIRAs are for 2.0 only? > As of today morning (10/14), we have *875*! > > I used the following query: " > pro

Re: HBASE 2.0

Thanks for bring this up Stephen, great to know a detailed plan for 2.0, have been expecting that for some time. :-) w.r.t new features, I hope we could also include the below two: 1. AsyncTable (HBASE-15921) 2. Netty-based RpcServer (HBASE-15756 bring up the idea and we'll open new JIRA to make

Re: Hadoop 3.x profile working for hbase 2.0 [Re: HBASE 2.0]

> > > > > 4) Have a job setup in jenkins so that we can gain insight and burn > > > down > > > > > unit tests failures against hadoop3. > > > > > > > > > > These items have a good chance of landing in the next week or two. > >

Re: Hadoop 3.x profile working for hbase 2.0 [Re: HBASE 2.0]

t; issues > > > > (HBASE-16712) > > > > 4) Have a job setup in jenkins so that we can gain insight and burn > > down > > > > unit tests failures against hadoop3. > > > > > > > > These items have a good chance of landing in the

Re: Hadoop 3.x profile working for hbase 2.0 [Re: HBASE 2.0]

> Other related issues that are nice to have but wouldn't block an hbase > > > alpha include: > > > 1) having no always failing unit tests against hadoop3 (HBASE-6581) > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > Jon. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3,

Re: Hadoop 3.x profile working for hbase 2.0 [Re: HBASE 2.0]

ce of landing in the next week or two. > > > > Other related issues that are nice to have but wouldn't block an hbase > > alpha include: > > 1) having no always failing unit tests against hadoop3 (HBASE-6581) > > > > Thoughts? > > Jon. > > > > On

Re: Hadoop 3.x profile working for hbase 2.0 [Re: HBASE 2.0]

16 at 3:27 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, All, > > > > It is time to discuss about the schedule of HBase 2.0 release. HBase 2.0 > > release is a big major release. When we release 1.0, we had 0.99 as dev > > preview/be

Hadoop 3.x profile working for hbase 2.0 [Re: HBASE 2.0]

ello, All, > > It is time to discuss about the schedule of HBase 2.0 release. HBase 2.0 > release is a big major release. When we release 1.0, we had 0.99 as dev > preview/beta release. We should do something similar for the 2.0 release. > > Matteo and I talked about this. We th

Re: HBASE 2.0

se-2.0.0 (I know Matteo probably ruled it out as too far > out > > to land in time but I'm the eternal optimist...) > > > > Thanks, > > M > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmai

Re: HBASE 2.0

oo far > > out > > > to land in time but I'm the eternal optimist...) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gm

  1   2   >