+1 Scott. And agreed all involved are looking out for the best interests of C* users. And I appreciate those with concerns contributing to addressing them.
I’m all for making upgrades smooth bc I do them so often. A huge portion of our 4.1 qualification is “will it break on upgrade”? Because of that I’m confident in this patch and concerned about many other areas. I think it’s commedable to want to reach a point where teams have the trust in the community to have done that for them but that starts w better test coverage and concrete evidence. Given all that, I think we should move forward w Ayushi’s proposal to make it on by default. Jordan On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 12:14 C. Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote: > I think these concerns are well-intended, but they feel rooted in > uncertainty rather than in factual examples of areas where risk is present. > I would appreciate elaboration on the specific areas of risk that folks > imagine. > > I would encourage those who express skepticism to try the patch, and I > endorse Ayushi's proposal to enable it by default. > > > – Scott > > On Jul 26, 2023, at 12:03 PM, "Miklosovic, Stefan" < > stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> wrote: > > > We can make it opt-in, wait one major to see what bugs pop up and we might > do that opt-out eventually. We do not need to hurry up with this. I > understand everybody's expectations and excitement but it really boils down > to one line change in yaml. People who are so much after the performance > will be definitely aware of this knob to turn on to squeeze even more perf > ... > > I look around dtests Jeremiah mentioned but I would just moved on and make > it opt-in if we are not 100% persuaded about it _yet_. > > ________________________________________ > From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 20:48 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default > > NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > > > > What comes to mind is how we brought down people clusters and made > sstables unreadable with the introduction of the chunk_length configuration > in 1.0. It wasn't about how tested the compression libraries were, but > about the new configuration itself. Introducing silent defaults has more > surface area for bugs than introducing explicit defaults that only apply to > new clusters and are so opt-in for existing clusters. > > > > On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 20:13, J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com > <mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Enabling ssl for the upgrade dtests would cover this use case. If those > don’t currently exist I see no reason it won’t work so I would be fine for > someone to figure it out post merge if there is a concern. What JCE > provider you use should have no upgrade concerns. > > -Jeremiah > > On Jul 26, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan < > stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com<mailto:stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com>> wrote: > > Am I understanding it correctly that tests you are talking about are only > required in case we make ACCP to be default provider? > > I can live with not making it default and still deliver it if tests are > not required. I do not think that these kind of tests were required couple > mails ago when opt-in was on the table. > > While I tend to agree with people here who seem to consider testing this > scenario to be unnecessary exercise, I am afraid that I will not be able to > deliver that as testing something like this is quite complicated matter. > There is a lot of aspects which could be tested I can not even enumerate > right now ... so I try to meet you somewhere in the middle. > > ________________________________________ > From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org<mailto:m...@apache.org>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 17:34 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default > > NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > > > > > Can you say more about the shape of your concern? > > > Integration testing where some nodes are running JCE and others accp, and > various configurations that are and are not accp compatible/native. > > I'm not referring to (re-) unit testing accp or jce themselves, or matrix > testing over them, but our commitment to always-on upgrades against all > possible configurations that integrate. We've history with config changes > breaking upgrades, for as simple as they are. > > > >
