Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Duo Zhang]

Filed HBASE-26387

张铎(Duo Zhang)  于2021年10月21日周四 上午9:49写道：

> Done.
>
> Let me file an issue to update our HEADER.html.
>
> 张铎(Duo Zhang)  于2021年10月21日周四 上午8:41写道：
>
>> I think we have reached an agreement here to move the stable pointer
>> 2.4.x.
>>
>> Since 2.4.7 has been released, let's move the stable pointer to 2.4.7.
>>
>> Will do this later today.
>>
>> Thanks all for helping!
>>
>> Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月12日周二 下午2:59写道：
>>
>>> Sounds good. Created HBASE-26352
>>> , will get to it
>>> after
>>> completing some additional testing.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:47 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I was thinking we can add these things to the upgrade section.
>>> >
>>> > https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade2.0.rolling.upgrades
>>> >
>>> > Nick Dimiduk  于2021年10月11日周一 下午10:59写道：
>>> >
>>> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) >> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I
>>> think
>>> > > these
>>> > > > are all very important experiences for our end users.
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Question: Is the ref guide the place where we want to document what
>>> > > community testing has been performed on any given release? What would
>>> > such
>>> > > a section look like? Who do we imagine will benefit from such
>>> > information?
>>> > > How will they find it? How will they volunteer new results?
>>> > >
>>> > > Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after
>>> > taking
>>> > > > care
>>> > > > > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have
>>> > seen
>>> > > > > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS
>>> that
>>> > > stays
>>> > > > > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
>>> > > > > HBASE-17931).
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani >> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4
>>> > times
>>> > > > on
>>> > > > > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around
>>> 8-10
>>> > > hr.
>>> > > > > And
>>> > > > > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times
>>> after
>>> > > > > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table
>>> as
>>> > part
>>> > > > of
>>> > > > > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before
>>> > masters)
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns
>>> have
>>> > > > been
>>> > > > > > identified with default configs so far.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
>>> > > > > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have
>>> > sufficient
>>> > > > > test
>>> > > > > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4.
>>> And
>>> > > thank
>>> > > > > you
>>> > > > > > for starting this thread, Sean!
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey >> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >> Hi folks!
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to
>>> > 2.4.6+
>>> > > > > >> releases.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire
>>> to
>>> > get
>>> > > > > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect
>>> from
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those
>>> needs[2],
>>> > but
>>> > > > > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get
>>> > criteria
>>> > > > > >> together over the last 6 months.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
>>> > > > > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been
>>> going
>>> > > > > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as
>>> or
>>> > more
>>> > > > > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to
>>> say "if
>>> > > you
>>> > > > > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
>>> > > > > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we
>>> need
>>> > not
>>> > > > > >> block updating on something more rigorous.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> What do folks think?
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> -busbey
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> [1]:
>>> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
>>> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> [2]:
>>> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> [3]:
>>> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> [4]:
>>> > > > > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
>>> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
>>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Duo Zhang]

Done.

Let me file an issue to update our HEADER.html.

张铎(Duo Zhang)  于2021年10月21日周四 上午8:41写道：

> I think we have reached an agreement here to move the stable pointer 2.4.x.
>
> Since 2.4.7 has been released, let's move the stable pointer to 2.4.7.
>
> Will do this later today.
>
> Thanks all for helping!
>
> Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月12日周二 下午2:59写道：
>
>> Sounds good. Created HBASE-26352
>> , will get to it after
>> completing some additional testing.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:47 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I was thinking we can add these things to the upgrade section.
>> >
>> > https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade2.0.rolling.upgrades
>> >
>> > Nick Dimiduk  于2021年10月11日周一 下午10:59写道：
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I
>> think
>> > > these
>> > > > are all very important experiences for our end users.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Question: Is the ref guide the place where we want to document what
>> > > community testing has been performed on any given release? What would
>> > such
>> > > a section look like? Who do we imagine will benefit from such
>> > information?
>> > > How will they find it? How will they volunteer new results?
>> > >
>> > > Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：
>> > > >
>> > > > > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after
>> > taking
>> > > > care
>> > > > > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have
>> > seen
>> > > > > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS
>> that
>> > > stays
>> > > > > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
>> > > > > HBASE-17931).
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4
>> > times
>> > > > on
>> > > > > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around
>> 8-10
>> > > hr.
>> > > > > And
>> > > > > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times
>> after
>> > > > > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as
>> > part
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before
>> > masters)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns
>> have
>> > > > been
>> > > > > > identified with default configs so far.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
>> > > > > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have
>> > sufficient
>> > > > > test
>> > > > > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And
>> > > thank
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > for starting this thread, Sean!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Hi folks!
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to
>> > 2.4.6+
>> > > > > >> releases.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to
>> > get
>> > > > > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect
>> from
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those
>> needs[2],
>> > but
>> > > > > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get
>> > criteria
>> > > > > >> together over the last 6 months.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
>> > > > > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been
>> going
>> > > > > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or
>> > more
>> > > > > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say
>> "if
>> > > you
>> > > > > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
>> > > > > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we
>> need
>> > not
>> > > > > >> block updating on something more rigorous.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> What do folks think?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> -busbey
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> [1]:
>> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
>> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> [2]:
>> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> [3]:
>> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> [4]:
>> > > > > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
>> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Duo Zhang]

I think we have reached an agreement here to move the stable pointer 2.4.x.

Since 2.4.7 has been released, let's move the stable pointer to 2.4.7.

Will do this later today.

Thanks all for helping!

Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月12日周二 下午2:59写道：

> Sounds good. Created HBASE-26352
> , will get to it after
> completing some additional testing.
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:47 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
> wrote:
>
> > I was thinking we can add these things to the upgrade section.
> >
> > https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade2.0.rolling.upgrades
> >
> > Nick Dimiduk  于2021年10月11日周一 下午10:59写道：
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I think
> > > these
> > > > are all very important experiences for our end users.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Question: Is the ref guide the place where we want to document what
> > > community testing has been performed on any given release? What would
> > such
> > > a section look like? Who do we imagine will benefit from such
> > information?
> > > How will they find it? How will they volunteer new results?
> > >
> > > Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：
> > > >
> > > > > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after
> > taking
> > > > care
> > > > > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have
> > seen
> > > > > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that
> > > stays
> > > > > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
> > > > > HBASE-17931).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4
> > times
> > > > on
> > > > > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around
> 8-10
> > > hr.
> > > > > And
> > > > > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times
> after
> > > > > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before
> > masters)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns
> have
> > > > been
> > > > > > identified with default configs so far.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> > > > > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have
> > sufficient
> > > > > test
> > > > > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And
> > > thank
> > > > > you
> > > > > > for starting this thread, Sean!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi folks!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to
> > 2.4.6+
> > > > > >> releases.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to
> > get
> > > > > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect
> from
> > > the
> > > > > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2],
> > but
> > > > > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get
> > criteria
> > > > > >> together over the last 6 months.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> > > > > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been
> going
> > > > > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or
> > more
> > > > > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say
> "if
> > > you
> > > > > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> > > > > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need
> > not
> > > > > >> block updating on something more rigorous.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What do folks think?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -busbey
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1]:
> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [2]:
> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [3]:
> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [4]:
> > > > > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Viraj Jasani]

Sounds good. Created HBASE-26352
, will get to it after
completing some additional testing.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:47 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang)  wrote:

> I was thinking we can add these things to the upgrade section.
>
> https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade2.0.rolling.upgrades
>
> Nick Dimiduk  于2021年10月11日周一 下午10:59写道：
>
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I think
> > these
> > > are all very important experiences for our end users.
> > >
> >
> > Question: Is the ref guide the place where we want to document what
> > community testing has been performed on any given release? What would
> such
> > a section look like? Who do we imagine will benefit from such
> information?
> > How will they find it? How will they volunteer new results?
> >
> > Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：
> > >
> > > > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after
> taking
> > > care
> > > > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have
> seen
> > > > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that
> > stays
> > > > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
> > > > HBASE-17931).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4
> times
> > > on
> > > > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10
> > hr.
> > > > And
> > > > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
> > > > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as
> part
> > > of
> > > > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before
> masters)
> > > > >
> > > > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have
> > > been
> > > > > identified with default configs so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> > > > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have
> sufficient
> > > > test
> > > > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And
> > thank
> > > > you
> > > > > for starting this thread, Sean!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi folks!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to
> 2.4.6+
> > > > >> releases.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to
> get
> > > > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from
> > the
> > > > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2],
> but
> > > > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get
> criteria
> > > > >> together over the last 6 months.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> > > > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
> > > > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or
> more
> > > > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if
> > you
> > > > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> > > > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need
> not
> > > > >> block updating on something more rigorous.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What do folks think?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -busbey
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]:
> > > > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> > > > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [2]:
> > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [3]:
> > > > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [4]:
> > > > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> > > > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Andrew Purtell]

I like Nick's elucidation.

+1 from me.

As 2.4 RM I've had good experiences with it in chaos testing and have found
nothing that would not recommend it.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:58 AM Nick Dimiduk  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 1:16 PM Sean Busbey  wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
> > are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> > personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> > block updating on something more rigorous.
> >
>
> Sean -- At first I bristled at your definition of the stable pointer but
> I've come around to really like it. For me, the stable pointer had been
> "what version the community says is production-ready." However,
> "production-ready" can vary quite a lot based on one's priorities, and
> quickly lands us in the need to define and maintain a list of criteria.
> Worse, it puts the HBase community in a position of taking responsibility
> for other peoples' production environments, which is absurd.
>
> Your definition is more subjective, more focused on onboarding of new
> users, and -- importantly -- much more manageable from the community
> perspective.
>
> +1 on resolving HBASE-25690 to use a definition of "stable" pointer based
> on Sean's definition.
> +1 on moving and maintaining the "stable" pointer to the latest 2.4
> release.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrew

Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
   - A23, Crosstalk

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Duo Zhang]

I was thinking we can add these things to the upgrade section.

https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade2.0.rolling.upgrades

Nick Dimiduk  于2021年10月11日周一 下午10:59写道：

> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
> wrote:
>
> > Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I think
> these
> > are all very important experiences for our end users.
> >
>
> Question: Is the ref guide the place where we want to document what
> community testing has been performed on any given release? What would such
> a section look like? Who do we imagine will benefit from such information?
> How will they find it? How will they volunteer new results?
>
> Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：
> >
> > > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after taking
> > care
> > > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have seen
> > > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that
> stays
> > > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
> > > HBASE-17931).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times
> > on
> > > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10
> hr.
> > > And
> > > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
> > > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part
> > of
> > > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters)
> > > >
> > > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have
> > been
> > > > identified with default configs so far.
> > > >
> > > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> > > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient
> > > test
> > > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And
> thank
> > > you
> > > > for starting this thread, Sean!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi folks!
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+
> > > >> releases.
> > > >>
> > > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
> > > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from
> the
> > > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
> > > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
> > > >> together over the last 6 months.
> > > >>
> > > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> > > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
> > > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
> > > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
> > > >>
> > > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if
> you
> > > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> > > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> > > >> block updating on something more rigorous.
> > > >>
> > > >> What do folks think?
> > > >>
> > > >> -busbey
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]:
> > > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> > > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
> > > >>
> > > >> [2]:
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
> > > >>
> > > >> [3]:
> > > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
> > > >>
> > > >> [4]:
> > > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> > > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Nick Dimiduk]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang)  wrote:

> Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I think these
> are all very important experiences for our end users.
>

Question: Is the ref guide the place where we want to document what
community testing has been performed on any given release? What would such
a section look like? Who do we imagine will benefit from such information?
How will they find it? How will they volunteer new results?

Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：
>
> > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after taking
> care
> > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have seen
> > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that stays
> > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
> > HBASE-17931).
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani  wrote:
> >
> > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times
> on
> > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10 hr.
> > And
> > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
> > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part
> of
> > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters)
> > >
> > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have
> been
> > > identified with default configs so far.
> > >
> > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient
> > test
> > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And thank
> > you
> > > for starting this thread, Sean!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi folks!
> > >>
> > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+
> > >> releases.
> > >>
> > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
> > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the
> > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
> > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
> > >> together over the last 6 months.
> > >>
> > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
> > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
> > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
> > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> > >> block updating on something more rigorous.
> > >>
> > >> What do folks think?
> > >>
> > >> -busbey
> > >>
> > >> [1]:
> > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
> > >>
> > >> [2]:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
> > >>
> > >> [3]:
> > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
> > >>
> > >> [4]:
> > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Nick Dimiduk]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 1:16 PM Sean Busbey  wrote:

>
> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> block updating on something more rigorous.
>

Sean -- At first I bristled at your definition of the stable pointer but
I've come around to really like it. For me, the stable pointer had been
"what version the community says is production-ready." However,
"production-ready" can vary quite a lot based on one's priorities, and
quickly lands us in the need to define and maintain a list of criteria.
Worse, it puts the HBase community in a position of taking responsibility
for other peoples' production environments, which is absurd.

Your definition is more subjective, more focused on onboarding of new
users, and -- importantly -- much more manageable from the community
perspective.

+1 on resolving HBASE-25690 to use a definition of "stable" pointer based
on Sean's definition.
+1 on moving and maintaining the "stable" pointer to the latest 2.4 release.

Thanks,
Nick

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Peter Somogyi]

+1
I'm in favor of moving the stable pointer to 2.4.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) 
wrote:

> Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I think these
> are all very important experiences for our end users.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：
>
> > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after taking
> care
> > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have seen
> > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that stays
> > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
> > HBASE-17931).
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani  wrote:
> >
> > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times
> on
> > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10 hr.
> > And
> > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
> > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part
> of
> > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters)
> > >
> > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have
> been
> > > identified with default configs so far.
> > >
> > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient
> > test
> > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And thank
> > you
> > > for starting this thread, Sean!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi folks!
> > >>
> > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+
> > >> releases.
> > >>
> > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
> > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the
> > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
> > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
> > >> together over the last 6 months.
> > >>
> > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
> > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
> > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
> > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> > >> block updating on something more rigorous.
> > >>
> > >> What do folks think?
> > >>
> > >> -busbey
> > >>
> > >> [1]:
> > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
> > >>
> > >> [2]:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
> > >>
> > >> [3]:
> > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
> > >>
> > >> [4]:
> > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Duo Zhang]

Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I think these
are all very important experiences for our end users.

Thanks.

Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道：

> Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after taking care
> of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have seen
> smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that stays
> on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
> HBASE-17931).
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani  wrote:
>
> > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times on
> > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10 hr.
> And
> > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
> > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part of
> > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters)
> >
> > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have been
> > identified with default configs so far.
> >
> > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient
> test
> > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And thank
> you
> > for starting this thread, Sean!
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi folks!
> >>
> >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+
> >> releases.
> >>
> >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
> >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the
> >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
> >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
> >> together over the last 6 months.
> >>
> >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
> >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
> >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
> >>
> >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
> >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> >> block updating on something more rigorous.
> >>
> >> What do folks think?
> >>
> >> -busbey
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
> >>
> >> [2]:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
> >>
> >> [3]:
> >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
> >>
> >> [4]:
> >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Duo Zhang]

+1 on moving to 2.4.

Viraj Jasani  于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:40写道：

> I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times on
> the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10 hr. And
> also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
> applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part of
> the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters)
>
> Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have been
> identified with default configs so far.
>
> Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient test
> data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And thank you
> for starting this thread, Sean!
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
>
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+
> > releases.
> >
> > The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
> > some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the
> > "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
> > AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
> > together over the last 6 months.
> >
> > The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> > discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
> > since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
> > stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
> >
> > Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
> > are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> > personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> > block updating on something more rigorous.
> >
> > What do folks think?
> >
> > -busbey
> >
> > [1]:
> > "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> > https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
> >
> > [2]:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
> >
> > [3]:
> > "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
> >
> > [4]:
> > Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> > https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Viraj Jasani]

Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after taking care
of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have seen
smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS that stays
on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of
HBASE-17931).


On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani  wrote:

> I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times on
> the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10 hr. And
> also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
> applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part of
> the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters)
>
> Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have been
> identified with default configs so far.
>
> Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
> infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient test
> data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And thank you
> for starting this thread, Sean!
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+
>> releases.
>>
>> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
>> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the
>> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
>> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
>> together over the last 6 months.
>>
>> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
>> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
>> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
>> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
>>
>> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
>> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
>> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
>> block updating on something more rigorous.
>>
>> What do folks think?
>>
>> -busbey
>>
>> [1]:
>> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
>> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
>>
>> [2]:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
>>
>> [3]:
>> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
>>
>> [4]:
>> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
>> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Viraj Jasani]

I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 times on
the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around 8-10 hr. And
also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times after
applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as part of
the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before masters)

Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns have been
identified with default configs so far.

Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different
infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have sufficient test
data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And thank you
for starting this thread, Sean!


On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:

> Hi folks!
>
> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+
> releases.
>
> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
> some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the
> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
> together over the last 6 months.
>
> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].
>
> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
> block updating on something more rigorous.
>
> What do folks think?
>
> -busbey
>
> [1]:
> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" :
> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t
>
> [2]:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690
>
> [3]:
> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge
>
> [4]:
> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk
>

[DISCUSS] move stable pointer to 2.4.6+

[Sean Busbey]

Hi folks!

I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to 2.4.6+ releases.

The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to get
some documentation together on what we as a community expect from the
"stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those needs[2], but
AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get criteria
together over the last 6 months.

The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active
discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been going
since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or more
stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4].

Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say "if you
are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I
personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we need not
block updating on something more rigorous.

What do folks think?

-busbey

[1]:
"[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" : https://s.apache.org/6cz3t

[2]:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690

[3]:
"[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge

[4]:
Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3"
https://s.apache.org/ks7wk