Failure: HBase Generate Website

Build status: Failure If successful, the website and docs have been generated and the site has been updated automatically. If you're getting this email, it probably failed and you may need to update the site manually if you can't get Jenkins fixed. If failed, see

Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

Shall we move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to release 1.3.0 ? -- Best regards, - Andy If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond Teller (via Peter Watts)

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-17898) Update dependencies

stack created HBASE-17898: - Summary: Update dependencies Key: HBASE-17898 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17898 Project: HBase Issue Type: Task Affects Versions: 2.0.0

Re: Is HBase RPC-Handling idempotent for reads?

I see, some priority-based preemptive scheduling. bq. if it requires I/O resources that are not allocated to it Easy to tell whether the request misses the cache and requires IO operation, but what's the standard of "not allocated"? Some kind of timeout? Anyway, interesting topic and let us know

Re: Is HBase RPC-Handling idempotent for reads?

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Yu Li wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we should assume no other but the > single operation when checking whether it's idempotent. Similar to the > wikipedia > example : "A

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

+1 -Dima On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote: > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > St.Ack > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses as > > indicating

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

+1 to EOL 0.98. Thanks Andrew for all the work maintaining it! -Mikhail On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dima Spivak wrote: > +1 > > -Dima > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote: > > > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > > St.Ack > > > > On Mon,

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

+1 to EOL, and thanks to Andrew for all of the RM'ing. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:27 PM Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > Andrew has done tremendous work. > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov > wrote: > > > +1 to EOL 0.98. > > > > Thanks Andrew

Re: Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

I can't ask about 1.3.1 (and neither can you Ted) because 1.3.1 is not released yet. I need to bring this up now because I made a provisional remark on the board report about 1.3.0. If possible let's keep this on topic. Thanks. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Ted Yu

Re: Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

Given the number of outstanding fixes coming in on 1.3.1, I'd rather wait for it as well. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM Ted Yu wrote: > Release 1.3.1 seems to have high chance of passing. > > How about using 1.3.1 as stable release ? > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:28

Re: Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

Okay, so rephrasing. I'd rather not mark 1.3.0 as the stable release since HBASE-17069 is in the current stable pointer (1.2.5) and hasn't been fixed in a 1.3.z release line version yet. I think we should revisit the question if and when there's a 1.3.1 release. -busbey On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at

Re: Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

Ok, thanks. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Okay, so rephrasing. > > I'd rather not mark 1.3.0 as the stable release since HBASE-17069 is in the > current stable pointer (1.2.5) and hasn't been fixed in a 1.3.z release > line version yet. > > I think

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 0.94 release line

I also think we should declare 0.94 EOL. If no further comment, we will take this to be consensus. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Ted Yu wrote: > Yes, I think so. > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > Hi Folks! > > > > It's

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses as indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Hi Folks! > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as

Re: Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

Yeah, I also would prefer to wait until 1.3.1 is released. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Ok, thanks. > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > Okay, so rephrasing. > > > > I'd rather not mark 1.3.0 as

Re: Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

Release 1.3.1 seems to have high chance of passing. How about using 1.3.1 as stable release ? On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Shall we move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to release > 1.3.0 ? > > > -- > Best regards, > >-

Re: Move the 'stable' pointer for HBase in dist.apache.org to 1.3.0 ?

I brought up 1.3.1 because of HBASE-17886 which is marked as a blocker. FYI On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I can't ask about 1.3.1 (and neither can you Ted) because 1.3.1 is not > released yet. I need to bring this up now because I made a

Re: [VOTE] Second release candidate for HBase 1.3.1 (RC1) is available

+1 Checked sums and signatures: Okay Ran test suite (1.8.0_91): Okay RAT check: Okay On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > +1 > > Checked sums and signatures: ok > Built from source: ok (7u80) > RAT check passes: ok > Unit test suite passes: ok (7u80) >

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

I agree we should EOL 0.98. St.Ack On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses as > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > On Wed, Mar

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

+1 Andrew has done tremendous work. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov wrote: > +1 to EOL 0.98. > > Thanks Andrew for all the work maintaining it! > > -Mikhail > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dima Spivak > wrote: > > > +1 > > >

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-17128) Find Cause of a Write Perf Regression in branch-1.2

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17128?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack resolved HBASE-17128. --- Resolution: Implemented Resolving as solved by the compound of issues referenced herein. > Find Cause of a

Re: Is HBase RPC-Handling idempotent for reads?

Yes. In the context to the underlying physical region or database,. read is idempotent. Thanks Jerry On Apr 9, 2017 9:15 PM, "Yu Li" wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we should assume no other but the > single operation when checking whether it's idempotent.

[jira] [Reopened] (HBASE-17895) TestAsyncProcess#testAction fails if unsafe support is false

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17895?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Chia-Ping Tsai reopened HBASE-17895: After attaching the patch, you should click the "submit patch" to trigger QA >

A new Mutilple-Type Queue idea to handle multiple workloads

Now, the feature HBASE-11355 seperates the single Call Queue into MutilQueue(get call queue, write call queue and scan call queue), and each type queue can specify fixed number of handlers. It's helpful in some outages , to avoid all read or all write requests ran out of handler threads. however,

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-17895) TestAsyncProcess#testAction fails if unsafe support is false

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17895?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Wen-Hsiu,Chang resolved HBASE-17895. Resolution: Fixed > TestAsyncProcess#testAction fails if unsafe support is false >