Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-14 Thread Nate McCall
Josh - You are 100% correct on that - I appreciate you calling it out. In re-reading this, I think that came out sideways and significantly harsher from what I intended. My apologies to Benedict and Aleksey. My (poorly made) point was that collaboration is the lifeblood of any open source

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-13 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> > a couple of people (even if I know them personally, > consider them friends and are both among the best engineers i've ever > met) going off in a room and producing something in isolation is more > or less a giant "f*k you" to the open source process and our community > as a whole. Two

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Nate McCall
As someone who has been here a (very) long time and worked on C* in production envs. back to version 0.4, this large patch - taken by itself - does, to be frank, scare the shit out of me. In a complex system any large change will have side effects impossible to anticipate. I have seen this hold

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Pavel Yaskevich
It seems to me that the corner stone here is the development process. If the work and review is done openly (e.g. on JIRA or Github) we wouldn't be having this post factum conversation, because all of the progress would be visible, so it would make sense to just squash before committing if so

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
Can you start a new thread to build consensus on your proposals for modifying the commit process? I do not share your views, as already laid out in my first email. The community makes these decisions through building consensus, and potentially a vote of the PMC. This scope of change requires

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Blake Eggleston
It seems like one of the main points of contention isn’t so much the the content of the patch, but more about the amount of review this patch has/will receive relative to its perceived risk. If it’s the latter, then I think it would be more effective to explain why that’s the case, and what

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Jordan West
Since their seems to be an assumption that I haven’t read the code let me clarify: I am working on making time to be a reviewer on this and I have already spent a few hours with the patch before I sent any replies, likely more than most who are replying here. Again, because I disagree on

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
I would once again exhort everyone making these kinds of comment to actually read the code, and to comment on Jira. Preferably with a justification by reference to the code for how or why it would improve the patch. As far as a design document is concerned, it’s very unclear what is being

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Pavel Yaskevich
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:15 AM Jordan West wrote: > I understand these non-technical discussions are not what everyone wants to > focus on but they are extremely pertinent to the stability of the project. > What I would like to see before merging this in is below. They are all > reasonable

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Sam Tunnicliffe
+1 Thanks for articulating that so well Josh. Sam > On 12 Apr 2019, at 16:19, Blake Eggleston > wrote: > > Well said Josh. You’ve pretty much summarized my thoughts on this as well. > > +1 to moving forward with this > >> On Apr 11, 2019, at 10:15 PM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: >> >> As one

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Jordan West
I understand these non-technical discussions are not what everyone wants to focus on but they are extremely pertinent to the stability of the project. What I would like to see before merging this in is below. They are all reasonable asks in my opinion that will still result in the patch being

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Blake Eggleston
Well said Josh. You’ve pretty much summarized my thoughts on this as well. +1 to moving forward with this > On Apr 11, 2019, at 10:15 PM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > As one of the two people that re-wrote all our unit tests to try and help > Sylvain get 8099 out the door, I think it's

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
I don’t have a lot to add to Josh’s contribution, except that I’d like to really hammer home that many people were a party to 8099, and as a project we learned a great deal from the experience. It’s a very complex topic, that does not lend itself to simple comparisons, but I think anyone who

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-12 Thread Pavel Yaskevich
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:15 PM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > As one of the two people that re-wrote all our unit tests to try and help > Sylvain get 8099 out the door, I think it's inaccurate to compare the scope > and potential stability impact of this work to the truly sweeping work that > went

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-11 Thread Joshua McKenzie
As one of the two people that re-wrote all our unit tests to try and help Sylvain get 8099 out the door, I think it's inaccurate to compare the scope and potential stability impact of this work to the truly sweeping work that went into 8099 (not to downplay the scope and extent of this work here).

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-10 Thread Oleksandr Petrov
Sorry to pick only a few points to address, but I think these are ones where I can contribute productively to the discussion. > In principle, I agree with the technical improvements you mention (backpressure / checksumming / etc). These things should be there. Are they a hard requirement for 4.0?

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-10 Thread Dinesh Joshi
> On Apr 10, 2019, at 9:06 AM, Sankalp Kohli wrote: > > I think we should wait for testing doc on confluence to come up and discuss > what all needs to be added there to gain confidence. > > If the work is more to split the patch into smaller parts and delays 4.0 even > more, can we use time

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-10 Thread Sankalp Kohli
I think we should wait for testing doc on confluence to come up and discuss what all needs to be added there to gain confidence. If the work is more to split the patch into smaller parts and delays 4.0 even more, can we use time in adding more test coverage, documentation and design docs to

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-10 Thread Jordan West
There is a lot of discuss here so I’ll try to keep my opinions brief: 1. The bug fixes are a requirement in order to have a stable 4.0. Whether they come from this patch or the original I have less of an opinion. I do think its important to minimize code changes at this time in the

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-10 Thread Dinesh Joshi
Here's are my 2¢. I think the general direction of this work is valuable but I have a few concerns I’d like to address. More inline. > On Apr 4, 2019, at 1:13 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > > I would like to propose CASSANDRA-15066 [1] - an important set of bug fixes > and stability

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-10 Thread Oleksandr Petrov
To be fair, even though the patch totals to 20K LoC, the core of the patch is within reasonable bounds (around net.async.*). There are many changes because of the code that got moved around. Some parts changes look large because Java is quite a verbose language (e.g., metric tables).

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-10 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
Appreciate everyone's input. It sounds like there's broad agreement that the fixes need to make it into 4.0, which I'm really pleased to see. The question seems to be moving towards scope and timing. TL;DR: This patch is probably the most efficient route to a stable 4.0. The patch is already

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-09 Thread Joseph Lynch
Let's try this again, apparently email is hard ... I am relatively new to these code paths—especially compared to the committers that have been working on these issues for years such as the 15066 authors as well as Jason Brown—but like many Cassandra users I am familiar with many of the classes

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-09 Thread Joseph Lynch
*I am relatively new to these code paths—especially compared to the committers that have been working on these issues for years such as the 15066 authors as well as Jason Brown—but like many Cassandra users I am familiar with many of the classes of issues Aleksey and Benedict have identified with

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-04 Thread Jon Haddad
Given the number of issues that are addressed, I definitely think it's worth strongly considering merging this in. I think it might be a little unrealistic to cut the first alpha after the merge though. Being realistic, any 20K+ LOC change is going to introduce its own bugs, and we should be

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-04 Thread Pavel Yaskevich
Great to see such a significant progress made in the area! On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:13 PM Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > I would like to propose CASSANDRA-15066 [1] - an important set of bug fixes > and stability improvements to internode messaging code that Benedict, I, > and others have been

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-04 Thread J. D. Jordan
Definitely sounds like it is worth taking a 2nd look here. Given that this is in relation to brand new code for 4.0, I agree that it makes sense to get it right the first time, rather than applying bandaids to 4.0 and rewriting things for 4.next. I think 4.0 should be a solid starting point for