+1 (non-binding)
- A bit late but I ran a set of rolling upgrade tests last week from 2.6.0
Latest to 2.7.0 RC.
- Tests covered rolling upgrade for individual components: NN, DN, NM, RM, HS-
While rolling upgrade was in progress, several MR jobs were also running. -
Everything worked as expected and the upgrades completed with no job failures.
Phil
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 1:08 PM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
Has 2.7.0 actually shipped? As in: redistributed, maven artifacts pushed out,
etc. If so, it's very much too late to do another RC.
otherwise, maybe we should recognise that 2.7.0 isn't something we could push
out, simply go straight to 2.7.1 and not worry about the 2.7.0 release -that
is, just skip the final step of publishing.
To get that 2.7.1 out in a timely manner though, it needs to have 0 changes
other than these showstoppers; the ones which would have triggered a -1
(binding) if they showed up during the vote
> On 18 Apr 2015, at 00:00, Colin P. McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting suggestion. What's the advantage of putting
> HDFS-8070, HDFS-8163, and HDFS-8179 in 2.7.1, instead of just doing
> another RC? We have only done one release candidate so far... seems a
> little unusual.
>
> I realize that some of this stuff came in after the voting period, but
> I would still feel slightly more comfortable just fixing it and doing
> an rc1, if that's possible in the next week or two. The people who
> want to get the upstream release into their hands as soon as possible
> can use rc0 as-is. Thoughts?
>
> best,
> Colin
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>> +1 for calling 2.7.0 an alpha.
>>
>> There are a couple of more issues related to incorrect handling of
>> timestamps.
>>
>> 1. HDFS-8163 - Using monotonicNow for block report scheduling causes test
>> failures on recently restarted systems
>> 2. HDFS-8179 - DFSClient#getServerDefaults returns null within 1 hour of NN
>> start
>>
>> Tagged both as blockers for 2.7.1.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/15, 7:12 AM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <vino...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Quick look tells me this is a bug that needs fixing.
>>>
>>> Am on the road, so couldn't close the vote right after 5 days.
>>>
>>> Seeing as this is coming up beyond the voting period, unless you feel
>>> strongly against it, I'd like to close the vote as a success but do the
>>> following: call this release an alpha for downstream consumption in line
>>> with my original proposal, following it up with a 2.7.1 in two weeks.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> +Vinod
>>>
>>> On Apr 17, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Colin P. McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to fix HDFS-8070, which just came to light. The impact
>>>> is that if this isn't fixed, 2.6 clients will be unable to do
>>>> short-circuit reads against 2.7 datanodes.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Brahma Reddy Battula
>>>> <brahmareddy.batt...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>> Need Jcardar changes to support java 7 Byte code..I will work along with
>>>>> Todd to get jcardar..
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks & Regards
>>>>> Brahma Reddy Battula
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli [vino...@hortonworks.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 6:29 PM
>>>>> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.0 RC0
>>>>>
>>>>> Tx Brahma. Apologies for missing your offline email.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, did you have luck with an updated JCarder? Or does that need JCarder
>>>>> changes that you are waiting on.
>>>>>
>>>>> +Vinod
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 15, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula
>>>>> <brahmareddy.batt...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> HI Allen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for updating here [ HDFS-8132 ]..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jcardar is tied to the Java 6 class format. Hadoop 2.7.0 is our first
>>>>>> release that compiled Java 7 class files. Jcarder needs to updated to
>>>>>> support Java 7 byte code..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am +1 ( non binding),, after all the regression tests passed against
>>>>>> 2.7.0-RC0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks & Regards
>>>>>> Brahma Reddy Battula
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: Allen Wittenauer [a...@altiscale.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:45 AM
>>>>>> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org;
>>>>>> mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.0 RC0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone should look into HDFS-8132, which appears to have been filed
>>>>>> against RC0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 1:44 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
>>>>>> <vino...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've created a release candidate RC0 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The RC is available at:
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~vinodkv/hadoop-2.7.0-RC0/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The RC tag in git is: release-2.7.0-RC0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org at
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1017/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As discussed before
>>>>>>> - This release will only work with JDK 1.7 and above
>>>>>>> - I’d like to use this as a starting release for 2.7.x [1], depending on
>>>>>>> how it goes, get it stabilized and potentially use a 2.7.1 in a few
>>>>>>> weeks as the stable release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please try the release and vote; the vote will run for the usual 5 days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Vinod
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]: A 2.7.1 release to follow up 2.7.0
>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/zwzze6cqqgwq4rmw
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
