> I suspect this feature will be considered risky but I'd be willing to try it
> out and give it some production-like load (and with chaos). By the time we
> would be iterating our platform on 2.0 we'd have the type of production loads
> fielded that could overpressure meta on a single server.
Thanks Andy. Am working on a 1.x (for internal use) and will try to put both a
1.x (for reference) and 2.x version.
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:05 AM, Andrew Purtell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks. Are your experiences with FNv2 in production documented? Perhaps on
the JIRA? That would go a long way.
> On Nov 22, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Thiruvel Thirumoolan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> FN v2 happened due to the same reasons you mention. We believe v2 is complete
> based on our experience using and operating it in production since early
> 2016. We have a design doc @ umbrella jira HBASE-15531 and have responded to
> all questions we had so far. More eyes will always help.
>
> -Thiruvel
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016, 7:13:08 AM PST, Andrew Purtell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Favored nodes version 1 did not see much adoption and was hard to use or
> unusable, depending on who you ask, so please expect a focus on usability and
> feature completeness when/if v2 is reviewed for possible inclusion in 2.0.
> While I am not suggesting this is the case, if the v2 candidate shares the
> feature incompleteness or usability problems of its predecessor it should not
> go in.
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Thiruvel Thirumoolan
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > We would like to add the favored node enhancements as part of
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15531 to 2.0. Most of the code
> > should be new, there will be very less code changes to Master/AM etc.
> >
> > -Thiruvel
> >
> > On Monday, November 14, 2016, 10:06:49 PM PST, Anoop John
> > <[email protected]> wrote:>- Anyone (Ram, Anoop?) wants to post a
> > high-level writeup on the current
> > up-to-date state of offheaping?
> >
> > Off heaping the read path (HBASE-11425) this is completed some time
> > back. As per my knowledge at least 2 users back ported this work to
> > 1.x based version and even running in production. Am leaving it them
> > for giving details..
> >
> > Write path off heaping HBASE-15179 is the umbrella issue. As u can
> > see most of the sub tasks are done by now.. Mainly 2 more sub tasks
> > are yet to get committed. Both are some what bigger sized also..
> > Patch is already available for them. We hope it can be completed by
> > Nov end.
> >
> > Some more off heaping work, (in compaction path etc) might be taken up
> > after write path work. Alibaba guys might be joining with that. Had
> > some discuss with them.. We will come up with jira and doc for that
> > before actual work begin. But as Enis said ya all that can go in 2.x
> > (x>0) :-)
> >
> > Just giving some high level status update. Thanks ..
> >
> > -Anoop-
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Enis, by your criteria it seems the log4j2 upgrade ticket should be
> >> considered for 2.0 as well: HBASE-12341.
> >>
> >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Another way to look at whether a feature is a "blocker" or not for 2.0 is
> >>> a
> >>> simple test:
> >>> - Can this feature be committed for 2.1, 2.2, etc or not assuming it does
> >>> not make into 2.0.
> >>>
> >>> It is a simple test, but affectively validates whether the feature is
> >>> client-visible and have backwards compatibility implications. If it is ok
> >>> to bring the feature in for 2.1 or later, it means that the release should
> >>> never block on it. Otherwise, we should at least have the API / Client
> >>> visible parts of it in 2.0 if not the full thing.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the features under discussion through this lens reveals easier
> >>> decision points I think. A couple of examples:
> >>> - Java async client / C++ Client: It is independent work, can come in 2.1
> >>> or 2.2, etc. Whenever it is completed.
> >>> - Offheaping : transparent ti clients, so can come in incrementally in
> >>> 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, etc.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, 1.x releases have been going on for >1.5 years, and
> >>> will
> >>> likely go on for another year at least. So the choices (dependency, APIs,
> >>> etc) that we make now for 2.0 will likely live for >2 years. In that
> >>> respect I would rather be a bit more aggressive in terms of dropping
> >>> support for older stuff and updating wherever we can. For example require
> >>> Hadoop-2.6+, Java-8, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Enis
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mikhail Antonov <[email protected]
> >>> <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Great to see progress here.
> >>>>
> >>>> As I'm reading through the list, here're some high-level questions I
> >>> have:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Regarding the work on new AssignmentManager - any notes on
> >>>> perf/stability testing? Are you guys running tips of master branch
> >>> through
> >>>> ITBLL setup?
> >>>> - Anyone (Ram, Anoop?) wants to post a high-level writeup on the
> >>> current
> >>>> up-to-date state of offheaping?
> >>>> - Logical clock - at this point is it more like a nice to have feature
> >>>> than "need to be done before 2.0"? What are the features blocked or
> >>>> affected by lack thereof?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Mikhail
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Stack <[email protected] <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the writeup Stephen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See below.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Stephen Jiang <
> >>> [email protected] <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello, fellow HBASE developers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are making progress towards HBASE 2.0 releases. I am using the
> >>>>>> following queries to search for on-going HBASE 2.0 feature work items
> >>>>>> (project = HBase AND (fixVersion = 2.0.0 OR affectedVersion = 2.0.0)
> >>>> AND
> >>>>>> resolution is EMPTY AND (issuetype != Bug AND issuetype != Test AND
> >>>>>> issuetype != Sub-task) ORDER BY issuetype DESC), at this time, we
> >>> have
> >>>>>> 247! That is a lot. At some time in near future, we definitely need
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> trim down the list; otherwise, 2.0 will never be released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Agree. Suggest we all do our own review but at a certain stage, it is
> >>> up
> >>>> to
> >>>>> the RMs to make a call on what shape of 2.0 will be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> For now, Matteo and I are tracking some big projects that are
> >>> on-going:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (1). HBASE-14350 the stable Assignment Manager (using Procedure V2)
> >>>>>> - This is a blocker to have branch-2 cut. In the past few weeks, we
> >>>> made
> >>>>>> good progress and majority of implementation is done. The patches
> >>> are
> >>>>>> under review and testing. Matto is drafting a document for review.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (2). HBASE-14414 Backup/Restore Phase 3
> >>>>>> - Currently it is blocked by HBASE-14123. The giant HBASE-14123
> >>>> patches
> >>>>>> was discussed and reviewed from the community (see
> >>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg41090.html for
> >>> the
> >>>>>> long
> >>>>>> discussion); and all feedback were taken care of in the latest patch.
> >>>>>> Currently I marked HBASE-14123 as 2.0 blocker, as without it, the
> >>>> further
> >>>>>> develpment of backup/restore is blocked - the backup/restore is a key
> >>>>>> enterprise feature for 2.0 release. I think HBASE-14123 is ready for
> >>>>>> another round of vote.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> IMO, not a blocker since it ancillary function but something we should
> >>>> get
> >>>>> in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> (3). HBASE-15179 Offheap
> >>>>>> - This is another important feature that I think it is MUST for 2.0.
> >>>>> Since
> >>>>>> stack works closely with Intel developers, he has some insight on
> >>> this
> >>>>>> project: "Intel are betting on this. Alibaba are using the offheap
> >>> read
> >>>>>> path and interested in write path too. This work is still very much
> >>> up
> >>>> in
> >>>>>> the air and being worked out as we go (especially the Y! Israel
> >>>> inmemory
> >>>>>> compaction component). It is a little shakey dependent on mslab
> >>>> pooling,
> >>>>>> blockcache being on by default, async wal being default, and then
> >>>>> dependent
> >>>>>> on lots of perf and ITBLL testing."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The above is from a private, hurried email that does not do the current
> >>>>> state justice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ram and Anoop are the authorities on offheaping and have been keeping
> >>> up
> >>>>> their state in an associated doc. The lads might be persuaded do a
> >>>> summary
> >>>>> of current state here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ditto for inmemory compaction. Our Anastasia and Eshcar are working
> >>> hard
> >>>> at
> >>>>> the moment doing laste pieces and perf testing. Maybe we can a status
> >>>>> dumped here in dev.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> (4). HBASE-16952 Protobuf3
> >>>>>> - Good news, stack got the majority of work done already. This is a
> >>>> MUST
> >>>>>> for 2.0 release. Now we only have a small sub-task HBASE-16967
> >>>>> (findbugs)
> >>>>>> left.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> To be clear, pb3 is under the offheaping umbrella. Let's add async WAL
> >>> to
> >>>>> this list, also needed by offheaping.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Will be back after taking a look at current 2.0 list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree that hbase2 needs to support hadoop3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> St.Ack
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> (5). HBASE-14070 Logical Clock
> >>>>>> - This needs to be done before 2.0 release. At this time, seems not
> >>>>> making
> >>>>>> much progress.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (6). HBASE-16833 JAVA Async Client
> >>>>>> - A lot of progress was made by Duo and his associates. We should be
> >>>> in
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>> good shape in JAVA client when 2.0 release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (7). HBASE-14850 C++ Async Client
> >>>>>> - Another project that is making good progress. I know some customer
> >>>>> wants
> >>>>>> this. This is long overdue project. Hopefully we will make those
> >>>>> customer
> >>>>>> happy in 2.0 release with a good performed C++ client.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please let me know other on-going projects that needs to be in HBASE
> >>>> 2.0
> >>>>>> release (stack mentioned "logical file system tier", but I am not
> >>> sure
> >>>>>> whether it would make enough progress to have a realistic chance
> >>> making
> >>>>>> 2.0). As I said at the beginning of this email, at some point soon,
> >>> we
> >>>>>> will be more picky and trim down the unfinished features in 2.0.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Happy Weekend!
> >>>>>> Stephen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Michael Antonov
> >>>>
