+1 on adding release notes. New RC is not required and even my intention was not to take new RC. Just a documentation on this would be enough.
Regards Ram > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:48 PM > To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl > Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available > for download > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:15 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It's default off. I'd say we just say it's an experimental feature in > the release notes. > > +1 for calling it experimental in notes and docs, and not removing it. > Replication was in an experimental state for quite some time, too, and > we didn't rip that out - I think shipping things off-by-default with > clear labeling is one of the best ways to sand down rough edges. > > > > > > > Are you saying we should have another RC? > > There was other stuff that went into 0.94 after I cut the RC, so that > would potentially need to stabilize if I cut a new RC now. > > > > -- Lars > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 7:17 AM > > Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is > available for download > > > > Thanks for sharing this information, Ramkrishna. > > > > Dictionary WAL compression makes replication not functional - see > details > > in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5778 > > > > I would vote for the removal of Dictionary WAL compression until we > make it > > more robust and consuming much less memory. > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> One small observation after giving +1 on the RC. > >> The WAL compression feature causes OOME and causes Full GC. > >> > >> The problem is, if we have 1500 regions and I need to create > >> recovered.edits > >> for each of the region (I dont have much data in the regions > (~300MB)). > >> Now when I try to build the dictionary there is a Node object > getting > >> created. > >> Each node object occupies 32 bytes. > >> We have 5 such dictionaries. > >> > >> Initially we create indexToNodes array and its size is 32767. > >> > >> So now we have 32*5*32767 = ~5MB. > >> > >> Now I have 1500 regions. > >> > >> So 5MB*1500 = ~7GB.(Excluding actual data). This seems to a very > high > >> initial memory foot print and this never allows me to split the logs > and I > >> am not able to make the cluster up at all. > >> > >> Our configured heap size was 8GB, tested in 3 node cluster with 5000 > >> regions, very less data( 1GB in hdfs cluster including replication), > some > >> small data is spread evenly across all regions. > >> > >> The formula is 32(Node object size)*5(No of dictionary)*32767(no of > node > >> objects)*noofregions. > >> > >> I think this initial memory needs to be documented (documentation > should do > >> for now)or has to be fixed with some workarounds. > >> > >> So pls give your thoughts on this. > >> > >> Regards > >> Ram > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan > [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:48 AM > >> > To: [email protected]; 'lars hofhansl' > >> > Subject: RE: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is > available > >> > for download > >> > > >> > Hi > >> > We (it includes the test team here) 0.94 RC and carried out > various > >> > operations on it. > >> > Puts, Scans, and all the restart scenarios (using kill -9 also). > Even > >> > the > >> > encoding stuffs were tested and carried out our basic test > scenarios. > >> > Seems > >> > to work fine. > >> > > >> > Did not test rolling restart with 0.92. By this week we may try to > do > >> > some > >> > performance comparison with 0.92. > >> > Also Lars and I agreed for a point release too. > >> > So I am +1 on the RC. > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > Ram > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: lars hofhansl [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:53 PM > >> > > To: [email protected] > >> > > Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is > >> > available > >> > > for download > >> > > > >> > > OK, I'll change my tactic :) > >> > > > >> > > If there are no -1's by Wed, May 16th, I'll release RC4 as > 0.94.0. > >> > > > >> > > -- Lars > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > From: Stack <[email protected]> > >> > > To: lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > >> > > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 10:39 PM > >> > > Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is > >> > available > >> > > for download > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:26 PM, lars hofhansl > <[email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > Thanks Stack. > >> > > > > >> > > > So that's two +1 (mine doesn't count I guess). And no -1. > >> > > > >> > > Why doesn't yours count? Usually the RMs does, if they +1 it. > So, > >> > > that'd be 3x+1 + a non-binding +1. > >> > > > >> > > > I talked to Ram offline, and we'll fix HBase with Hadoop 2.0.0 > in a > >> > > 0.94 point release. > >> > > > > >> > > > I would like to see a few more +1's before I declare this the > >> > > official 0.94.0 release. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > You might be waiting a while (smile). Fellas seem to be busy... > >> > > > >> > > Good on you Lars, > >> > > St.Ack > >> > >> > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera
