Shrijeet: >> I dont have power to vote. I don't think so. The fact that you have been using 3777 is the best vote.
Please elaborate more on your cluster setup, usage pattern and whether your application needed to be twisted after the new build went in. Thanks On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Shrijeet Paliwal <[email protected]>wrote: > I dont have power to vote. But if it helps, we are running with HBASE-3777 > on > top of 0.90.3 from the day it was committed. The qps on one of our data > centers is 50K. > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Andy for your support. > > Appreciate it. > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried > > > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by > > > > several different teams. > > > > > > > > > This makes sense. My +1 was partly an agreement that I'd try it. > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Cc: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40 PM > > > > Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90 > > > > > > > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried > > > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by > > > > several different teams. EG if we can verify that the CIQ workload, > > > > the SU workload, and the TM workload all work with this patch with no > > > > adverse effects, seems reasonable to commit. But just passing unit > > > > tests doesn't seem like enough to me since it changes behavior in a > > > > way that is difficult to predict. > > > > > > > > -Todd > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> One option is to publish the backported patch which passes all unit > > > tests > > > >> and 'certified' by people who play trial on it. > > > >> > > > >> The switch proposed by Todd is nice but difficult to implement. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > >>> >>> We could query user@ before considering commit. > > > >>> > Let's do this. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Objections ? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> I don't think most users will know whether this will break them > > > > until > > > >>> it's "too late". Hence defaulting to current behavior, > > > > and letting > > > >>> people switch it if the current behavior isn't working for them. > > > >>> > > > >>> -Todd > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Todd Lipcon > > > >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Todd Lipcon > > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > > > > >
