Re: Proposal: freeze Thrift starting with 2.1.0

2014-03-11 Thread sankalp kohli
RIP Thrift :) +1 with We will retain it for backwards compatibility. Hopefully most people will move out of thrift by 2.1 On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Brandon Williams dri...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has written a thrift wrapper, +1 On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan

Re: Jira down, again?

2016-06-24 Thread sankalp kohli
Michael KJ...Jira is down again :P On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Michael Shuler wrote: > On 06/20/2016 01:16 PM, Will Hayworth wrote: > > Hey all--I didn't want to add more heat than light to this, but I think > at > > this point I'm behooved to speak up. :) I'm a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.13

2016-02-03 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 for CASSANDRA-10887 On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.13.

Re: Reminder: critical fixes only in 2.1

2016-07-20 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 on only allowing critical bug fixes. I agree with Sylvain that CASSANDRA-11349 is a border line critical bug. I would vote for CASSANDRA-11349 as being critical since over streaming is a big issue for us as well. I am also fine taking it as an internal patch since we already maintain an

Re: State of Unit tests (1 out of 100 passes in trunk)

2016-07-20 Thread sankalp kohli
ed up the process (and get to know > parts of the code-base you don't yet know!), please let me know and I'll > start kicking out test fix tickets your way once triaged. > > Thanks. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:08 PM, sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >

State of Unit tests (1 out of 100 passes in trunk)

2016-07-19 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi All, I can see that unit tests are very flaky in trunk as well as previous versions of Cassandra. Out of the last 100 builds(#949 to #1049) for trunk, I only saw 1 successful build. Is there any plan to fix the failing tests that I am not aware of? I see lots of tickets recently for

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.15

2016-06-30 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 for CASSANDRA-12043 and CASSANDRA-11991 On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Dave Brosius wrote: > nits > > snappy-java and thrift-server's license files have

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

2016-08-15 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 We should do this for large contributions. Also we should link the dev discussion thread in the JIRA for reference. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jeremiah D Jordan < jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like keeping things in JIRA because then everything is in one place, and > it is easy

Re: Perf regression between 2.2.5 and 3.11

2017-01-25 Thread sankalp kohli
We are just getting started with 3.0.10. Will let you know. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > There was CASSANDRA-12269 fixed in 3.10 recently as well. > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Dikang Gu wrote: > > We still see perf

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.11

2017-02-16 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > +1 > > -- > AY > > On 16 February 2017 at 01:15:46, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) > wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.11. > > sha1: 338226e042a22242645ab54a372c7c1459e78a01

Re: Thanks for all the fish.

2016-08-20 Thread sankalp kohli
Cannot agree more on this. Huge +1 On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Brian O'Neill wrote: > +1, props to the giant on whose shoulders we stand. > -- > Brian O'Neill > Principal Architect @ Monetate > m: 215.588.6024 > bone...@monetate.com > Is

Re: [Discuss] Adding dtest to project

2016-09-23 Thread sankalp kohli
I think we should continue to use Dtest. Besides the improvement which Edward talked about, we should see how we can have an option in ccm to also support multiple machines if available. On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Edward Capriolo wrote: > I love DTest I think it is

Re: Guidelines for test coverage

2016-09-22 Thread sankalp kohli
.org/doc/latest/development/testing.html > > > > My takeaway from recent in-person discussions the other week about this > > topic, is that it's really just a matter of making this less of a > > chore/sharing the burden of reviews when the whole dtest suite has to be > > ru

Guidelines for test coverage

2016-09-19 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, I wanted to know if there are any guidelines for contributors to give out unit and integration tests along with the patches. If not, we should discuss and have them in place. I know we are making good progress with test coverage but we should add guidelines around adding unit and

Re: [VOTE] Accept dtests Donation Into Project

2016-09-30 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Jake Farrell wrote: > +1 > > -Jake > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > > I propose we begin the process of accepting the contribution of the > > dtest codebase

Re: [VOTE] Close client-...@cassandra.apache.org mailing list

2016-11-07 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: > As the moderator of this list, +1. It was more helpful in the thrift days > (where I built a client, and thus became the moderator) but is practically > useless in the cql world. > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 11:11

Re: Backports to 2.1.16

2016-10-21 Thread sankalp kohli
We dont plan to open them at this time considering 2.1 is pretty old. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Romain Hardouin < romainh...@yahoo.fr.invalid> wrote: > Interesting, will you publish the backports on https://github.com/apple ? > > > > Thanks, > > Romain >

Backports to 2.1.16

2016-10-20 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, We backport a lot of patches in Cassandra at Apple. We contribute all the patches to the community and port them to 2.1 if we think they will help. We will soon start focusing on 3.0 and won't back port to 2.1 unless critical. I want to list them in this email in random order and not

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.10 (Take 3)

2016-11-14 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Michael Shuler > wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.10. > > > > sha1: d6a3ef4863142c3f9fc1def911f28341fc78f2e8 > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.10 (Take 3)

2016-11-21 Thread Sankalp Kohli
condaryIndex/ > Should be fixed by > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12651 > > Although there can be more tests in PA. > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:35 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >>I see the following

Failed Dtest will block cutting releases

2016-11-21 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, We should not cut a releases if Dtest are not passing. I won't block 3.10 on this since we are just discussing this. Please provide feedback on this. Thanks, Sankalp

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.10 (Take 3)

2016-11-21 Thread sankalp kohli
another thread for making Dtest a blocker for release. -1 due to testall failing. 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- cassandra-dev/201607.mbox/%3cCAEPxca1TGo6S1O8DcpM7dmXsBe4 4EniSezkpq5_=qksctk3...@mail.gmail.com%3e On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Sankalp Kohli <kohlis

Re: Summary of 4.0 Large Features/Breaking Changes (Was: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

2016-11-18 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi Nate, Most of the JIRAs in the middle are being rebased or being reviewed and code is already out there. These will make 4.0 a very solid release. Thanks, Sankalp On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Ben Bromhead wrote: > We are happy to start testing against

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

2016-11-17 Thread sankalp kohli
@Jeff "But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified for production because it needs SASI." You are brave :) On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and >

Re: Summary of 4.0 Large Features/Breaking Changes (Was: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

2016-11-20 Thread Sankalp Kohli
I have asked him to calm down as these things are never constructive for the community. Making personal comments put him in bad light more than anytime else. I will speak with him in person when we are in office. Thanks for keeping an eye on these things for us. I will setup another meeting

Re: Summary of 4.0 Large Features/Breaking Changes (Was: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

2016-11-20 Thread Sankalp Kohli
This was not for the Dev list :) > On Nov 20, 2016, at 09:06, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have asked him to calm down as these things are never constructive for the > community. Making personal comments put him in bad light more than anytime >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.10 (Take 3)

2016-11-20 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, I see the following test runs are failing. Are they for this release? http://cassci.datastax.com/job/cassandra-3.X_utest_cdc/ http://cassci.datastax.com/job/cassandra-3.X_testall/ http://cassci.datastax.com/job/cassandra-3.X_offheap_dtest/

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

2016-11-03 Thread sankalp kohli
List looks really good. I will let you know if there is something else we plan to add to this list. On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > It was brought up recently at the PMC level that our goals as a > project are not terribly clear. > > This is a pretty

Re: Per blockng release on dtest

2017-01-10 Thread sankalp kohli
I think we should start with blocking 3.10 releases on testall + Dtest. After 3.10, we can start blocking it on other jobs for each release after that. This will make sure we make progress and dont cause 3.10 to sit for a long time. Thoughts? On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Josh McKenzie

Re: Wrapping up tick-tock

2017-01-13 Thread sankalp kohli
+ to Jason idea. We should have a minimum of 6 months between a major version. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > It's fine to limit the minimum time between major releases to six months, > but I do not think we should force a major just because n

Re: Wrapping up tick-tock

2017-01-10 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 to 6 month release and ending tick/tock On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Nate McCall wrote: > > > > If this question is to outside the topic and more appropriate for a > > different thread I'm happy to put a hold on it until the release cadence > is > > agreed. > > > >

Re: Where do I find EverywhereStrategy?

2016-12-02 Thread sankalp kohli
The point Ben is saying is that for auth keyspace, default o​f RF=1 is not good for any type of cluster whether it is small or large.

Re: Failed Dtest will block cutting releases

2016-12-02 Thread sankalp kohli
r more active and widespread community > involvement if we want to truly *fix* this problem long-term. > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > > > +1. Kind of silly to put advise people to put something in prod which is

Re: Collecting slow queries

2016-12-05 Thread sankalp kohli
This is duped by a JIRA which is fixed in 3.2 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6226 On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Jan wrote: > HI Folks; > is there a way for 'Collecting slow queries' in the Apache Cassandra. ?I > am aware of the DSE product

Re: Where do I find EverywhereStrategy?

2016-11-30 Thread sankalp kohli
If we think that having this strategy can be misused, we can always have a check to allow this only on Auth keyspace. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > Relevant: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12912 > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:32

Re: [DISCUSS] Implementing code quality principles, and rules (was: Code quality, principles and rules)

2017-03-28 Thread sankalp kohli
If the code coverage goes down or do not go above the required cutoff due to adding toString or getter setter like functionality, can we make it a process to explain the reason in the JIRA before committing it? Regarding changes in hard to unit tests parts of the code, can we make it a process to

Re: [VOTE] self-assignment of jira tickets

2017-03-29 Thread Sankalp Kohli
+1 > On Mar 29, 2017, at 07:50, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > +1 > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Benjamin Lerer > wrote: > >> Non binding +1 >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Haddad >> wrote: >> >>>

Re: [VOTE] Ask Infra to move github notification emails to pr@

2017-03-20 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:26 PM, jason zhao yang < zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > > > +1 > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:33 PM Jason Brown > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > On Mon, Mar 20,

Re: Cassandra on RocksDB experiment result

2017-04-19 Thread sankalp kohli
We should definitely evaluate pluggable storage engine...Besides several other advantages, it also helps in adding lot of tests to the storage engine. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Jon Haddad wrote: > I have no clue what it would take to accomplish a pluggable

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.14

2017-06-19 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Jason Brown wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 14:12 Brandon Williams wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Michael Shuler > > wrote: > > > > > I propose the following

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-09-30 Thread sankalp kohli
+1 to marking it experimental and also making it a prop to enable these features. By default I think they should be disabled. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > Reviewers should be able to suggest when experimental is warranted, and > conversation on

Re: Improve the performance of CAS

2018-05-16 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, The idea of combining read with prepare sounds good. Regarding reducing the commit round trip, it is possible today by giving a lower consistency level for commit I think. Regarding EPaxos, it is a large change and will take longer to land. I think we should do this as it will help lower

Re: Tombstone passed GC period causes un-repairable inconsistent data

2018-06-20 Thread sankalp kohli
I agree with Stefan that we should use incremental repair and use patches from Marcus to drop tombstones only from repaired data. Regarding deep repair, you can bump the read repair and run the repair. The issue will be that you will stream lot of data and also your blocking read repair will go up

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-03 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi Kurt, Thank you for your feedback. I am reading your comment as +1 on the idea of working on making a solid release but +0 on branching model. Is that correct? Thanks, Sankalp On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:09 PM kurt greaves wrote: > > > > but by committing to reserving trunk for

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-03 Thread sankalp kohli
> > Jon > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:28 PM Josh McKenzie > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Why not just branch a 4.0-rel and bugfix there and merge up while > > still > > > > accepting new features or improvemen

Apache Cassandra Blog is now live

2018-08-07 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, Apache Cassandra Blog is now live. Check out the first blog post. http://cassandra.apache.org/blog/2018/08/07/faster_streaming_in_cassandra.html Thanks, Sankalp

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-08-16 Thread Sankalp Kohli
I am bumping this thread because patch has landed for this with repair functionality. I have a following proposal for this which I can put in the JIRA or doc 1. We should see if we can keep this in a separate repo like Dtest. 2. It should have its own release process. 3. It should have

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-08-18 Thread Sankalp Kohli
ply that it's also going to > become the de facto official side-car solution, which doesn't feel right > to me, given that the proposed patch isn't even reviewed and hasn't > received much feedback yet. > > >> On 18.08.18 17:44, Sankalp Kohli wrote: >> The threa

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-08-20 Thread sankalp kohli
wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018, at 14:27, Sankalp Kohli wrote: > > I am bumping this thread because patch has landed for this with repair > > functionality. > > > We are looking to contribute Reaper to the Cassandra project. > > Looking at the patch it's very s

Side Car New Repo vs not

2018-08-20 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, I am starting a new thread to get consensus on where the side car should be contributed. Please send your responses with pro/cons of each approach or any other approach. Please be clear which approach you will pick while still giving pros/cons of both approaches. Thanks. Sankalp

Re: Side Car New Repo vs not

2018-08-23 Thread sankalp kohli
ted things when > coupling is avoidable. As such I would prefer the sidecar to live in a > separate new repo, while still being part of the C* project. > > > > > > — > > > AY > > > > > > On 21 August 2018 at 17:06:39, sankalp kohli (kohlisank...@gmail.co

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-08-18 Thread Sankalp Kohli
The thread for side car is months old and no one has opposed to it and hence someone developed it. I am not sure how else you get consensus. Regarding separate repo, how do we get consensus? > On Aug 18, 2018, at 05:19, Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > > I don't see that we have reached

Re: Side Car New Repo vs not

2018-08-27 Thread Sankalp Kohli
8 at 3:01 PM sankalp kohli wrote: >> >> Separate repo is in a majority so far. Please reply to this thread with >> your responses. > > I think it makes sense for the code, project, and workflows to be > (de|loosely)-coupled, so the repo should be as well. > > +1 for a s

Re: Side Car New Repo vs not

2018-08-21 Thread sankalp kohli
d the current patch already creates > a > >> separate jar, and we could create a separate .deb reasonably easily). > >> Personally I think having a separate .deb/.rpm is premature at this > point > >> (for companies that really want it they can build their own pack

Re: [VOTE] Branching Change for 4.0 Freeze

2018-07-14 Thread sankalp kohli
tia.jayd...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM sankalp kohli > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>>As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not > >> branc

JIRAs in Review

2018-07-17 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, We are 7 weeks away from 4.0 freeze and there are ~150 JIRAs waiting for review. It is hard to know which ones should be prioritized as some of them could be not valid(fixes 2.0 bug), some of them will have the assignee who no longer is active, etc. If anyone is *not* getting traction on

Re: Reaper as cassandra-admin

2018-08-29 Thread Sankalp Kohli
We can wait for a week post Freeze so everyone can participate however we need to decide after that so we can make progress. I am leaning towards piecemeal approach so we can review the code and pick best of all 3 options > On Aug 29, 2018, at 00:26, kurt greaves wrote: > > 2c: There's a

Re: NGCC 2018?

2018-09-05 Thread sankalp kohli
t release. Let's focus on one thing at a time. > > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 12:29 PM sankalp kohli > > wrote: > > > > > A good time for NGCC will be closer to 4.0 release where we can plan > what > > > we can put it on 4.0-next. I am not sure

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-09-08 Thread sankalp kohli
Most of the discussions have been around whether we take some side car or do a cherry pick approach where we add a feature at a time to side car and use the best implementation. We have been discussing this first in April and now for several days. I think we all want some progress here. We will

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-09-09 Thread sankalp kohli
I agree with Jon and I think folks who are talking about tech debts in Reaper should elaborate with examples about these tech debts. Can we be more precise and list them down? I see it spread out over this long email thread!! On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:29 AM Elliott Sims wrote: > A big one to add

Re: QA signup

2018-09-06 Thread sankalp kohli
Thanks for starting this Jon. Instead of saying "I tested streaming", we should define what all was tested like was all data transferred, what happened when stream failed, etc. Based on talking to a few users, looks like most testing is done by doing an operation or running a load and seeing if it

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-09 Thread sankalp kohli
irection. In the early days of the project I tried to do > > this in a small way by testing the Hadoop support for every release > (major > > and minor) since it wasn’t on everyone’s radar but was important to me. > > Then I would vote with a non-binding vote and described what was te

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-09 Thread sankalp kohli
’s process > (making trunk stable at all times going forward), then I don’t think > there’s a reason why branching would detract from these efforts. In other > words if we’re just trying to say that we want to focus on stabilization > for the alpha/beta/rc of 4.0, then I would prefer branch

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-07 Thread Sankalp Kohli
r. > > So long as either/both are communicated to the contributors, the only > difference is in where new feature work gets accumulated: will stay a bit > longer in personal branches in the latter way. > > — > AY > > On 4 July 2018 at 01:30:40, sankalp kohli (kohlisank...

Re: [VOTE] Branching Change for 4.0 Freeze

2018-07-11 Thread sankalp kohli
We will be in this state till beta is reached. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM sankalp kohli wrote: > Hi, > As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not > branch on 1st September but will only allow following merges into trunk. > > a. Bug and Perf fi

Re: [VOTE] Branching Change for 4.0 Freeze

2018-07-12 Thread sankalp kohli
merging non code will be allowed correct On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > +1 > > (assuming merging patches on documentation will always be possible, as > it's not effecting the code base) > > > On 11.07.18 23:46, sankalp kohli wrote: > &g

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-09 Thread sankalp kohli
eep doing things the way we did but message strongly > that we won't be reviewing new things until 4.0 is stable". > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM Sankalp Kohli > wrote: > > > Does anyone has any more feedback on this? > > > > > On Jul 4, 2018, at 05:36,

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-09 Thread sankalp kohli
g the branching strategy in a way that prevents > people from working and collaborating on an Apache project. > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:56 AM sankalp kohli > wrote: > > > > I did not see a -1 but all +0s and a few +1s. > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:49 AM

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-09 Thread sankalp kohli
banned from new bringing in new > features if that's what they want to do. > > You're essentially giving a blanket -1 to all new features for a 3-6 > month period. > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:44 AM sankalp kohli > wrote: > > > > How is this preventing someone from workin

Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-03 Thread sankalp kohli
important. This isn't meant to discourage development – only to enable us to focus on testing and hardening 4.0 to deliver Cassandra's most stable major release. We would like to see adoption of 4.0 happen much more quickly than its predecessor. Thanks for considering this proposal, Sankalp Kohli

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-10 Thread sankalp kohli
Hi, I am +1 on freezing features at some point. Here are my thoughts 1. The reason it took 1.5 years b/w 3.0 and 4.0 is because 3.0 was released(not cut) too early. There were so many critical bugs in it for months after the release. Most people have just finished or about to upgrade to 3.0.

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-05 Thread sankalp kohli
We can take a look on 1st June how things are then decide if we want to freeze it and whats in and whats out. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Ariel Weisberg wrote: > Hi, > > +1 to having a feature freeze date. June 1st is earlier than I would have > picked. > > Ariel > > On

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-11 Thread sankalp kohli
If we have to decide on the date, we need to get confirmation on the following which I mentioned earlier. We dont want to freeze things and no one to make progress on 1. Who can sign up for fixing the tests(including upgrade tests). I don't think we can release without tests passing. We can still

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-12 Thread Sankalp Kohli
We can fix test after freezing if there are resources people are willing to put. We need to gather support to see who can help with the 3 points I have mentioned and when. On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:13, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: >> >> I agree there's little point freezing if

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-12 Thread Sankalp Kohli
Also I am +1 freezing anytime even today if someone can show what the plan is post freeze. May be I should start another thread to gather support for these items > On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:21, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We can fix test

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-12 Thread Sankalp Kohli
for freeze with these inputs. I agree your point that with more features it will be harder to test but may be without those features no one will test it. Just my opinion :) > On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:37, Sylvain Lebresne <lebre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:21 A

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-12 Thread Sankalp Kohli
+1 with Sept 1st as I am seeing willingness for people to test it after it > On Apr 12, 2018, at 13:59, Ben Bromhead wrote: > > While I would prefer earlier, if Sept 1 gets better buy-in and we can have > broader commitment to testing. I'm super happy with that. As Nate

Re: [Discuss] patch review virtual hackathon

2018-04-05 Thread sankalp kohli
I think it better to pick some JIRAs per 2-3 weeks and have people review them. In my experience, it is hard to synchronize all people across companies during one 72 hour slot. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > Per Kurt's point in our release thread, we

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-10 Thread Sankalp Kohli
I think moving it to August/Sept will be better On Apr 10, 2018, at 17:24, Josh McKenzie wrote: >> >> 50'ish days is too short to draw a line in the sand, >> especially as people balance work obligations with Cassandra feature >> development. > > What's a reasonable

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-10 Thread Sankalp Kohli
Also in this time we should try to see who can do 3 things I mentioned in my earlier email > On Apr 10, 2018, at 17:50, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think moving it to August/Sept will be better > > On Apr 10, 2018, at 17:24, Josh McKenzie <jmc

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-18 Thread sankalp kohli
Do we have driver authors who wish to support both projects? On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > Removed other lists (please don't cross post) > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > Hello Cassandra developers,

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-19 Thread sankalp kohli
If you donate Thread per core to C*, I am sure someone can help you review it and get it committed. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Ben Bromhead wrote: > Re #3: > > Yup I was thinking each shard/port would appear as a discrete server to the > client. > > If the per port

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-23 Thread Sankalp Kohli
Is one of the “abuse” of Apache license is ScyllaDB which is using Cassandra but not contributing back? Happy to be proved wrong as I am not a lawyer and don’t understand various licenses .. > On Apr 23, 2018, at 16:55, Dor Laor wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:13 PM,

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-23 Thread Sankalp Kohli
ylladb.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Is one of the “abuse” of Apache license is ScyllaDB which is using >>> Cassandra but not contributing back? >>> >> >

Re: Repair scheduling tools

2018-04-03 Thread sankalp kohli
Repair is critical for running C* and I agree with Roopa that it needs to be part of the offering. I think we should make it easy for new users to run C*. Can we have a side car process which we can add to Apache Cassandra offering and we can put this repair their? I am also fine putting it in C*

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-16 Thread sankalp kohli
Will GossipingPropertyFileSnitch not be vulnerable to Gossip bugs where we lose hostId or some other fields when we restart C* for large clusters(~1000 instances)? On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:59 AM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > We should, but the 4.0 features that log/reject verbs to invalid replicas >

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-22 Thread Sankalp Kohli
now we have not seen > any “lost” rack/DC information during such testing. > > -Jeremiah > >> On Oct 22, 2018, at 5:46 PM, sankalp kohli wrote: >> >> We will have similar issues with Gossip but this will create more issues as >> more things will be relie

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-22 Thread sankalp kohli
n you start a host replacement, the new host won’t learn about the host whose status is missing and the view of this host will be wrong." - CASSANDRA-10366 On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:22 PM Sankalp Kohli wrote: > I will send the JIRAs of the bug which we thought we have fixed but it &

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-22 Thread Sankalp Kohli
in to make sure, and this is the first email I have with one. > > -Jeremiah > >> On Oct 22, 2018, at 9:37 PM, sankalp kohli wrote: >> >> Here are some of the JIRAs which are fixed but actually did not fix the >> issue. We have tried fixing this by several

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-22 Thread Sankalp Kohli
+1 to fallback and like I said before removing PFS is a good idea as long it is safe > On Oct 22, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:09 PM J. D. Jordan > wrote: > >> Do you have a specific gossip bug that you have seen recently which caused >> a problem that

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-22 Thread sankalp kohli
pertyFileSnitch as the token(s) for this > host will be missing from gossip/system.peers? > > Em sáb, 20 de out de 2018 às 00:34, Sankalp Kohli > escreveu: > > > Say you restarted all instances in the cluster and status for some host > > goes missing. Now when you st

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-22 Thread sankalp kohli
dc/rack info about the local node. > > Em seg, 22 de out de 2018 às 16:58, sankalp kohli > escreveu: > > > Yes it will happen. I am worried that same way DC or rack info can go > > missing. > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:52 PM Paulo Motta > > wrot

Re: CASSANDRA-13241 lower default chunk_length_in_kb

2018-10-19 Thread Sankalp Kohli
(We should definitely harden the definition for freeze in a separate thread) My thinking is that this is the best time to do this change as we have not even cut alpha or beta. All the people involved in the test will definitely be testing it again when we have these releases. > On Oct 19,

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-19 Thread Sankalp Kohli
Gossip snitch :) > On Oct 19, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Hanna wrote: > > Do you mean to say that during host replacement there may be a time when the > old->new host isn’t fully propagated and therefore wouldn’t yet be in all > system tables? > >> On Oct 17, 2018

Re: Deprecating/removing PropertyFileSnitch?

2018-10-17 Thread sankalp kohli
information > from gossip yet, it should not be a problem. (As far as I know GPFS does > this, but I have not done extensive code diving or testing to make sure all > edge cases are covered there) > > -Jeremiah > > > On Oct 16, 2018, at 11:56 AM, sankalp kohli > wrote: &

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-10-17 Thread Sankalp Kohli
Hi Mick, Can you share the link to cwiki if you have started it ? Thanks Sankalp > On Oct 4, 2018, at 5:20 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Dinesh / Sankalp, > > My suggestion was to document the landscape in hope and an attempt to better > understand the requirements possible to

Re: 4.0 Testing Signup

2018-11-07 Thread sankalp kohli
This is good start and we should use this approach each component. Once we have volunteers for each area, it will be important to also publish a confluence page per component by the volunteer so we can know/discuss how it was tested. On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM Joseph Lynch wrote: >

Re: Jepsen testing

2018-11-08 Thread sankalp kohli
Should we use confluence page to sign them up for this testing? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+QA+Signup On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 2:07 PM Nate McCall wrote: > [- cassandra-users] > Hi Yuji, > Thanks so much for working on this! Any fault injection testing is >

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-11-13 Thread Sankalp Kohli
Hi Mick, Any feedback? Also pinging this thread after a week for others to give feedback > On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:40 AM, Dinesh Joshi > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Joey, Vinay & I have fleshed out the Management process proposal as the very > first CIP document (with Jason’s

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-09-29 Thread sankalp kohli
Thanks Dinesh for looking at the tools and thanks Mick for listing them down. Based on Dinesh response, is it accurate to say that for bulk functionality, we have evaluated the tools listed by the community? If anything is missed we should discuss it as we want to make sure we looked at all

  1   2   >