+1

 - verified md5, asc
 - Build with hadoop 2 and hadoop 1
 - Run local mode cluster, and these tests:
 - bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.LoadTestTool -write 10:10:100
-num_keys 1000000 -read 100:30
 - bin/hbase "org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestLoadAndVerify
-Dloadmapper.backrefs=10 -Dloadmapper.map.tasks=10
-Dloadmapper.num_to_write=100000 -Dverify.reduce.tasks=1
-Dverify.scannercaching=10000 loadAndVerify"
 bin/hbase "org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList Loop
2 1 3000000 /tmp/biglinkedlist 1"

Also based on Jeff's tests run on multi-node cluster.

Enis



On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeffrey Zhong <jzh...@hortonworks.com>wrote:

> +1 based on the test suit I ran, which includes some large tests such as
> BigtopLoadAndVerify, LoatTestTool, GoraCI and TestAcidGuarantee. I've
> updated the release spreadsheet.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Jeffreyz
>
> On 3/22/13 7:33 AM, "Jean-Marc Spaggiari" <jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I deployed 0.94.6 on my 8 nodes "production" cluster.
> >
> >Ran some MR jobs (Row count and own MRs), everything went well.
> >Ran the test suite (mvn test -P runAllTests), everything went well.
> >(Tests run: 1325, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 13)
> >Done many operatoins (c.f. google spreadsheet), everything went well.
> >
> >Only thing is we lost 1% in scan performances but this should not sink
> >the release.
> >
> >So overall, I'm +1.
> >
> >JM
> >
> >2013/3/22 Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>:
> >> Sorry for the delay.
> >>
> >> I will test it deeply today and you will have my feedback before EOD.
> >>
> >> JM
> >>
> >> 2013/3/22 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
> >>> Hmm.  Ignore my +1 from earlier this evening on RC1.
> >>>
> >>> Here is a +1 for RC2.
> >>>
> >>> Checked md5.
> >>>
> >>> Checked signing.
> >>>
> >>> Again, multipage book is missing but single page is here so thats fine
> >>>I'd
> >>> say.  The javadocs AND the src xref are in this version.
> >>>
> >>> Loaded ten million into standalone and scanned verified all loaded.
> >>>
> >>> Logs look good.
> >>>
> >>> St.Ack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:49 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Friendly reminder to please have a look (voting period ended
> >>>>yesterday).
> >>>>
> >>>> I stress loaded 1bn 1k rows into a test cluster with 15 RS using 150
> >>>> mappers, watched key metrics. Besides maxing out our 10ge TOR switch
> >>>>all
> >>>> was good.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Lars
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>  From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> >>>> To: hbase-dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:24 PM
> >>>> Subject: [ANNOUNCE] The 3rd hbase 0.94.6 release candidate is
> >>>>available
> >>>> for download
> >>>>
> >>>> The 3rd and hopefully last 0.94.6 RC is available for download at
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~larsh/hbase-0.94.6-rc2/
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed with my code signing key: C7CFE328
> >>>>
> >>>> 0.94.6 is a primarily a bug fix release. This RC has 55 issues
> >>>>resolved
> >>>> against it, contributed by 28 individuals.
> >>>> These are mostly bug fixes. Don't be fooled by the comparatively small
> >>>> number of issues; one of them is a giant back port of the HBase
> >>>>snapshots
> >>>> feature.
> >>>> RC2 also fixes a nasty replication/restart issue and also pulls in all
> >>>> fixed committed since the last RC.
> >>>>
> >>>> The full list of changes is available here:
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12323907
> >>>>
> >>>> Please try out the RC, check out the doc, take it for a spin, etc, and
> >>>> vote +1/-1 by March 20th on whether we should release this as 0.94.6.
> >>>>
> >>>> The release testing spreadsheet is available here:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvLqcVIqNtlTdGkwN3NIeWw1bG
> >>>>JyQkZJMHJVVTB3aHc#gid=0
> >>>> (if you test this release, please add your test to this spreadsheet,
> >>>>so
> >>>> that we can gauge the coverage)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Lars
> >>>>
>
>
>

Reply via email to