JD, does TestRegionObserverScannerOpenHook work for you? I will retry to run it again on 3 different computers to see.
JM 2013/7/1 lars hofhansl <[email protected]>: > Hah. I let Cody answer here. I didn't like the empty table either, but he > preferred it. > > -- Lars > > > > ________________________________ > From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; lars hofhansl > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] The 1st hbase 0.94.9 release candidate is available > for download > > > I ran some PE single node tests on both tars, looked at the web UIs > and logs. I'm +1 on this RC. > > My only nit is the way that HBASE-5083 leaves an empty table if there > are not backup masters is kinda ugly. > > J-D > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: >> The 1st 0.94.9 RC is available for download at >> http://people.apache.org/~larsh/hbase-0.94.9-rc0/ >> Signed with my code signing key: C7CFE328 >> >> Like the previous point releases, 0.94.9 is a primarily a bug fix release. >> This RC is comparatively small with 26 issues resolved against it: >> [HBASE-8453] - TestImportExport failing again due to configuration issues >> [HBASE-8494] - TestRemoteAdmin#testClusterStatus should not assume >> 'requests' does not change >> [HBASE-8522] - Archived hfiles and old hlogs may be deleted immediately >> by HFileCleaner, LogCleaner in HMaster >> [HBASE-8555] - FilterList correctness may be affected by random ordering >> of sub-filter(list) >> [HBASE-8590] - [0.94] BlockingMetaScannerVisitor should check for parent >> meta entry while waiting for split daughter >> [HBASE-8639] - Poor performance of htable#getscanner in multithreaded >> environment due to DNS.getDefaultHost() being called in >> ScannerCallable#prepare() >> [HBASE-8640] - ServerName in master may not initialize with the >> configured ipc address of hbase.master.ipc.address >> [HBASE-8655] - Backport to 94 - HBASE-8346(Prefetching .META. rows in >> case only when useCache is set to true) >> [HBASE-8656] - Rpc call may not be notified in SecureClient >> [HBASE-8671] - Per-region WAL breaks CP backwards compatibility in 0.94 >> for non-enabled case >> [HBASE-8684] - Table Coprocessor can't access external HTable by default >> [HBASE-8700] - IntegrationTestBigLinkedList can fail due to random >> number collision >> [HBASE-8724] - [0.94] ExportSnapshot should not use hbase.tmp.dir as a >> staging dir on hdfs >> [HBASE-8742] - HTableDescriptor Properties not preserved when cloning >> [HBASE-8743] - upgrade hadoop-23 version to 0.23.7 >> [HBASE-8749] - Potential race condition between >> FSUtils.renameAndSetModifyTime() and HFile/LogCleaner >> [HBASE-8762] - Performance/operational penalty when calling HTable.get >> with a list of one Get >> [HBASE-8783] - RSSnapshotManager.ZKProcedureMemberRpcs may be >> initialized with the wrong server name >> [HBASE-5083] - Backup HMaster should have http infoport open with link >> to the active master >> [HBASE-8609] - Make the CopyTable support startRow, stopRow options >> [HBASE-8636] - Backport KeyValue Codec to 0.94 (HBASE-7413) >> [HBASE-8683] - Add major compaction support in CompactionTool >> [HBASE-8692] - [AccessController] Restrict HTableDescriptor enumeration >> [HBASE-8702] - Make WALEditCodec pluggable >> [HBASE-8504] - HTable.getRegionsInRange() should provide a non-cached API >> [HBASE-8603] - Backport HBASE-6921 to 0.94 >> >> The full list of changes is also available here: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12324431 >> >> Please try out the RC, check out the doc, take it for a spin, etc, and vote >> +1/-1 by July 2nd on whether we should release this as 0.94.9. >> >> The release testing spreadsheet is available here: >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvLqcVIqNtlTdGFHaktDR0FqLWdtQWZwdncyVzE3Z2c#gid=0 >> (if you test this release, please add your test to this spreadsheet, so that >> we can gauge the coverage) >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- Lars >> >> ps. I will likely be without access to the Internet for the next five days
