Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu 1.5.0 RC2

Thanks Hao, and Adar and Mike for reviewing. Glad we caught this issue before the release! I've just created an RC 3 with Hao's patch which will run until Friday. This vote is abandoned. - Dan On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu 1.5.0 RC2

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Hao Hao wrote: > Thanks Adar, Mike a lot for the quick review! Apologize again for not > caught it in an earlier stage. > > @Todd, I believe this LIFO change only controls which container the copied > tablet should reside inside a single

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu 1.5.0 RC2

Quick question on the fix: does the lifo behavior now cause the entirety of the copied tablet to end up in one container (hence one disk) if the tablet is less than a few gb? If so that also seems like a regression to consider. (Sorry for hijacking this thread rather than commenting on Gerrit. On

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu 1.5.0 RC2

-1 I agree with Hao's assessment that KUDU-2131 should be considered a blocker for 1.5. Below is some more color: Before the fix for KUDU-1726, tablet copies fsynced more than necessary but reliably kept their sessions alive by amortizing the cost of the fsync in each downloaded block. With the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu 1.5.0 RC2

Unfortunately, I think I just found a blocker for 1.5 (KUDU-2131 ). I am not sure if we should revert KUDU-1726 or do a quick fix which adds a user facing flag to config tablet copy session expire time (such as --tablet_copy_idle_timeout_ms).

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu 1.5.0 RC2

+1 on 1.5.0 RC2. Thanks for the quick turnaround on RC1, Dan. Sigs and checksums match. LICENSE and NOTICE files look good. I built the C++ code in RELEASE mode on Ubuntu xenial and all the C++ tests passed, except a couple of flaky tests that passed when I re-ran them. I didn't run the Java