Thanks Patrick for the detail (Support of the quality below puts us
hbasistas at ease about our deciscion to bet the farm on zk making our
next major release).
St.Ack
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> Some background on this: In order to add new features (sometimes to fix
> b
Some background on this: In order to add new features (sometimes to fix
bugs) we need to change the client lib in a non-b/w compatible way, this
is infrequent, but there's just no way around this in some cases. At the
server level we always ensure (and even in extreme cases this might not
be po
Patrick just let me know that newer client talking to older server is
not supported. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. Was
sort of surprised it worked at all so just noted this aspect of my zk
3.3.0 RC0 eval.
Congrats on new release lads,
St.Ack
P.S. Below is backup of my asserti
Stack, you can't use a new client with an old server. We support b/w
compatibility at the server level (new server works with old client) but
not the other way around. You would have to upgrade the server and
client at the same time, or upgrade the servers (rolling upgrade) then
upgrade the cli
With 5 +1's (3 from PMC members) and no -1's the vote passes.
Congratulations all!
I will work to finish the release process and send announcement emails
when it is completed.
Regards,
Patrick
Stack wrote:
+1
All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and
nothing odd l
+1
All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and
nothing odd looking. Looks like no issue having a zk 3.3.0 client
talk to a 3.2.2 ensemble.
Requires small mods to hbase other than dropping new zk jar into
hbase/lib in place of zk 3.2.2: HBASE-2380.
St.Ack
On Fri, Mar 19,
+1
Did some unit testing on different machine configs. Also, did some smoke
testing with a cluster size of 3, running some updates against it and
bringing one machine down at a time.
Seems to work!
Thanks
mahadev
On 3/24/10 9:36 AM, "Patrick Hunt" wrote:
> +1
>
> In addition to the st
+1
In addition to the std stuff (unit tests etc...) I've run a number of
deployment tests, including clusters of size 1/3/5/6/7/9/11/12/13 and
they are all working fine.
Patrick
Patrick Hunt wrote:
I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are
addressed in this re
+1, ran unit tests plus some manual tests, including some tests
involving observers.
On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
+1 ran some load tests and everything looks good. no measurable change
in performance from last release.
On 03/19/2010 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
I have c
+1 ran some load tests and everything looks good. no measurable change
in performance from last release.
On 03/19/2010 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are
addressed in this release.
*** Please download, test and VOTE before the
10 matches
Mail list logo
