Any other suggestions/objections here? If not, will make the cut over in next day or so. Thanks, St.Ack
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Almost miss the party... >> >> bq. Do you think it worth to backport this feature to branch-1 and release >> it in the next 1.x release? This may introduce a compatibility issue as >> said >> in HBASE-14949 that we need HBASE-14949 to make sure that the rolling >> upgrade >> does not lose data... >> From current perf data I think the effort is worthwhile, we already >> started >> some work here and will run it on production after some carefully testing >> (and of course, if the perf number confirmed, but I'm optimistic somehow >> :-P). Regarding HBASE-14949, I guess a two-step rolling upgrade will make >> it work, right? (And I guess this will also be a question when we upgrade >> from 1.x to 2.0 later?) >> >> > Or a clean shutdown and restart? Or a fresh install? I'd think backport > would be fine if you have to enable it and it has warnings and is clear on > circumstances under which there could be dataloss. > > St.Ack > > > >> btw, I'm +1 about making asyncfswal as default in 2.0 :-) >> >> Best Regards, >> Yu >> >> On 6 May 2016 at 09:49, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for your effort, Duo. >> > >> > I am in favor of turning AsyncWAL as default in master branch. >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:03 PM, 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Some progress. >> > > >> > > I have filed HBASE-15743 for the transparent encryption support, >> > > and HBASE-15754 for the AES encryption UT. Now both of them are >> resolved. >> > > Let's resume the discussion here. >> > > >> > > Thanks. >> > > >> > > 2016-05-03 10:09 GMT+08:00 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > > Fine, will add the testcase. >> > > > >> > > > And for the RPC, we only implement a new client side DTP here and >> still >> > > > use the original RPC. >> > > > >> > > > Thanks. >> > > > >> > > > 2016-05-03 3:20 GMT+08:00 Gary Helmling <ghelml...@gmail.com>: >> > > > >> > > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:24 PM 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > Yes, it does. There is testcase that enumerates all the possible >> > > >> protection >> > > >> > level(authentication, integrity and privacy) and encryption >> > > >> algorithm(none, >> > > >> > 3des, rc4). >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/hbase-server/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/io/asyncfs/TestSaslFanOutOneBlockAsyncDFSOutput.java >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I have also tested it in a secure cluster(hbase-2.0.0-SNAPSHOT >> and >> > > >> > hadoop-2.4.0). >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks. Can you add in support for testing with AES >> > > >> (dfs.encrypt.data.transfer.cipher.suites=AES/CTR/NoPadding)? This >> is >> > > only >> > > >> available in Hadoop 2.6.0+, but I think is far more likely to be >> used >> > in >> > > >> production than 3des or rc4. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Also, have you been following HADOOP-10768? That is changing >> Hadoop >> > RPC >> > > >> encryption negotiation to support more performant AES wrapping, >> > similar >> > > to >> > > >> what is now supported in the data transfer pipeline. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
