Sounds like this one isn't zk related, but if you run up against something feel free to ping me.
Patrick On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]>wrote: > Ted, > > Just to be clear, the issue isn't ZK, it's us. HBASE-2694 was a > stepping stone, but the master rewrite ended up in it's own branch. > That stepping stone isn't needed to run HBase properly. > > J-D > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looping in Patrick who may have insight for > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2694 > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> After some discussions today here at SU between Todd and the team, it > >> was suggested that this 0.89 release contains more of what we run in > >> production here. One major difference is that we reverted most of > >> HBASE-2694 since we had issues with the ZK-based assignment, didn't > >> know exactly how many other issues lurked in there, that most of those > >> fixes would probably not apply to the new master, and that it was > >> generally much slower than the pre-2694 master. I also helped Vidhya > >> with his 700 nodes today by patching 0.89.20100830 with 2694's revert, > >> and starting his cluster became much more faster. > >> > >> tl;dr I propose that we sink this RC and build a new one with 2694 > >> reverted (except for the core ZKW changes). > >> > >> What do the devs think? > >> > >> Thx, > >> > >> J-D > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Second RC, new vote! > >> > > >> > Source binary and source tar balls are available here: > >> > > >> > http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/< > http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/> > >> > > >> > You can also browse the candidate documentation here: > >> > > >> > > >> > http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/ > < > http://people.apache.org/%7Ejdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-2/hbase-0.89.20100830/docs/ > > > >> > > >> > Issues resolved since 0.89.20100726, our second 0.89.x release, are > >> > roughly ~23 issues odd including fixed deadlocks, better handling of > >> > IOEs during splits and improvements for filters: see > >> > http://su.pr/2HwiUe. 3 issues were also fixed for RC2: > >> > > >> > HBASE-2975 DFSClient names in master and RS should be unique > >> > HBASE-2967 Failed split: IOE 'File is Corrupt' -- sync length not > >> > being written out to SequenceFile > >> > HBASE-2964 Deadlock when RS tries to RPC to itself inside > >> SplitTransaction > >> > > >> > Shall we release this candidate as the third in our 0.89.x series of > >> > developer releases? > >> > > >> > Please see previous threads on 0.89 releases for more information > >> > about the purpose of this release candidate - in particular, this > >> > 'developer release' is for those who can tolerate risk and who are > >> > willing to give feedback in advance of our next major release. We're > >> > not making any guarantees that this is bug free. Its definitely not > >> > for production deploys. > >> > > >> > We'll do another release like this in a few weeks after the new master > >> > code has gone in. > >> > > >> > Please vote by Thursday, September 16th. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > J-D > >> > > >> > > >
