The intent is that this would come out in 2.1.0? This would be soon after a 2.0.0?
S On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:41 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since branch-2.0 has been cut and branch-2 is now 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT, will > merge branch HBASE-19397-branch-2 back to branch-2. > > 2018-01-10 9:20 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: > > > If branch-2.0 will be out soon then let's target this to 2.1. No problem. > > > > Thanks. > > > > 2018-01-10 1:28 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:19 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > OK, let me merge it master first. And then create a > HBASE-19397-branch-2 > >> > which will keep rebasing with the newest branch-2 to see if it is > stable > >> > enough. Since we can define this as a bug fix/refactoring rather than > a > >> big > >> > new feature, it is OK to integrate it at any time. If we think it is > >> stable > >> > enough before cutting branch-2.0 then we can include it in the 2.0.0 > >> > release, else let's include it in 2.1(Maybe we can backport it to 2.0 > >> > later?). > >> > > >> > > >> > >> I need to cut the Appy-suggested branch-2.0. Shout if > HBASE-19397-branch-2 > >> gets to be too much work and I'll do it sooner rather than later. Or, if > >> easier on you, just say and I'll make the branch-2.0 now so you can just > >> commit to branch-2 (branch-2.0 will become hbase2.0, branch-2 will > become > >> hbase2.1...). > >> > >> St.Ack > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks all here. > >> > > >> > 2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+08:00 ashish singhi <ashish.sin...@huawei.com>: > >> > > >> > > +1 to merge on master and 2.1. > >> > > Great work. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Ashish > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: 张铎(Duo Zhang) [mailto:palomino...@gmail.com] > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 6:53 AM > >> > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > >> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merge branch HBASE-19397 back to master and > >> branch-2. > >> > > > >> > > Anyway, if no objections on merging this into master, let's do it? > So > >> > that > >> > > we can start working on the follow-on features, such as table based > >> > > replication storage, and synchronous replication, etc. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks. > >> > > > >> > > 2018-01-09 7:19 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > >> palomino...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > This 'new' feature only changes DDL part, not the core part of > >> > > > replication, > >> > > > > i.e, how to read wal entries and how to replicate it to the > remote > >> > > > cluster, > >> > > > > etc. And also there is no pb message/storage layout change, you > >> can > >> > > > > think of this as a big refactoring. Theoretically we even do not > >> > > > > need to add > >> > > > new > >> > > > > UTs for this feature, i.e, no extra stability works. The only > >> > > > > visible change to users is that it may require more time on > >> > > > > modifying peers in shell. So in general I think it is less hurt > to > >> > > > > include it in the coming release? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > And why I think it SHOULD be included in our 2.0 release is > that, > >> > > > > the synchronous guarantee is really a good thing for our > >> replication > >> > > > > related UTs. The correctness of the current Test***Replication > >> > > > > usually depends > >> > > > on a > >> > > > > flakey condition - we will not do a log rolling between the > >> > > > > modification > >> > > > on > >> > > > > zk and the actual loading of the modification on RS. And we have > >> > > > > also > >> > > > done > >> > > > > a hard work to cleanup the lockings in ReplicationSourceManager > >> and > >> > > > > add a fat comment to say why it should be synchronized in this > >> way. > >> > > > > In general, the new code is much easier to read, test and debug, > >> and > >> > > > > also reduce the possibility of flakeyness, which could help us a > >> lot > >> > > > > when we start to stabilize our build. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > You see it as a big bug fix Duo? > >> > > > > >> > > Kind of. Just like the AM v1, we can do lots of fix to make it more > >> > > stable, but we know that we can not fix all the problems since we > >> store > >> > > state in several places and it is a 'mission impossible' to make all > >> the > >> > > states stay in sync under every situation... So we introduce AM v2. > >> > > For the replication peer tracking, it is the same problem. It is > hard > >> to > >> > > do fencing with zk watcher since it is asynchronous, so the UTs are > >> > always > >> > > kind of flakey in theoretical. And we depend on replication heavily > at > >> > > Xiaomi, it is always a pain for us. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm late to review. Will have a look after beta-1 goes out. This > >> stuff > >> > > > looks great from outside, especially distributed procedure > framework > >> > > > which we need all over the place. > >> > > > > >> > > > In general I have no problem w/ this in master and an hbase 2.1 > (2.1 > >> > > > could be soon after 2.0). Its late for big stuff in 2.0.... but > let > >> me > >> > > > take a looksee sir. > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks sir. All the concerns here about whether we should merge this > >> into > >> > > 2.0 are reasonable, I know. Although I really want this in 2.0 > >> because I > >> > > believe it will help a lot for stabilizing, I'm OK with merge it to > >> 2.1 > >> > > only if you guys all think so. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > St.Ack > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 2018-01-09 4:53 GMT+08:00 Apekshit Sharma <a...@cloudera.com>: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Same questions as Josh's. > >> > > > > > 1) We have RCs for beta1 now, which means only commits that > can > >> go > >> > > > > > in > >> > > > are > >> > > > > > bug fixes only. This change - although important, needed from > >> long > >> > > > > > time > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > > well done (testing, summary, etc) - seems rather very large to > >> get > >> > > > > > into > >> > > > > 2.0 > >> > > > > > now. Needs good justification why it has to be 2.1 instead of > >> 2.0. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- Appy > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -0 From a general project planning point-of-view (not based > on > >> > > > > > > the technical merit of the code) I am uncomfortable about > >> > > > > > > pulling in a > >> > > > > brand > >> > > > > > > new feature after we've already made one beta RC. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Duo -- can you expand on why this feature is so important > that > >> > > > > > > we > >> > > > > should > >> > > > > > > break our release plan? Are there problems that would make > >> > > > > > > including > >> > > > > this > >> > > > > > > in a 2.1/3.0 unnecessarily difficult? Any kind of color you > >> can > >> > > > provide > >> > > > > > on > >> > > > > > > "why does this need to go into 2.0?" would be helpful. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 1/6/18 1:54 AM, Duo Zhang wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19397 > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> We aim to move the peer modification framework from zk > >> watcher > >> > > > > > >> to procedure > >> > > > > > >> v2 in this issue and the work is done now. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Copy the release note here: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Introduce 5 procedures to do peer modifications: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >>> AddPeerProcedure > >> > > > > > >>> RemovePeerProcedure > >> > > > > > >>> UpdatePeerConfigProcedure > >> > > > > > >>> EnablePeerProcedure > >> > > > > > >>> DisablePeerProcedure > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> The procedures are all executed with the following stage: > >> > > > > > >>> 1. Call pre CP hook, if an exception is thrown then give > up > >> 2. > >> > > > > > >>> Check whether the operation is valid, if not then give up > 3. > >> > > > > > >>> Update peer storage. Notice that if we have entered this > >> > > > > > >>> stage, > >> > > > > then > >> > > > > > >>> we > >> > > > > > >>> can not rollback any more. > >> > > > > > >>> 4. Schedule sub procedures to refresh the peer config on > >> every > >> > > RS. > >> > > > > > >>> 5. Do post cleanup if any. > >> > > > > > >>> 6. Call post CP hook. The exception thrown will be ignored > >> > > > > > >>> since we > >> > > > > > have > >> > > > > > >>> already done the work. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> The procedure will hold an exclusive lock on the peer id, > so > >> > > > > > >>> now > >> > > > > there > >> > > > > > is > >> > > > > > >>> no concurrent modifications on a single peer. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> And now it is guaranteed that once the procedure is done, > >> the > >> > > > > > >>> peer modification has already taken effect on all RSes. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> Abstracte a storage layer for replication peer/queue > >> > > > > > >>> manangement, > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > >>> refactored the upper layer to remove zk related > >> > > > naming/code/comment. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> Add pre/postExecuteProcedures CP hooks to > >> > > > > > >>> RegionServerObserver, and > >> > > > > add > >> > > > > > >>> permission check for executeProcedures method which > requires > >> > > > > > >>> the > >> > > > > caller > >> > > > > > >>> to > >> > > > > > >>> be system user or super user. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> On rolling upgrade: just do not do any replication peer > >> > > > modifications > >> > > > > > >>> during the rolling upgrading. There is no pb/layout > changes > >> on > >> > > > > > >>> the peer/queue storage on zk. > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> And there are other benefits. > >> > > > > > >> First, we have introduced a general procedure framework to > >> send > >> > > > tasks > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > >> RS > >> > > > > > >> and report the report back to Master. It can be used to > >> > > > > > >> implement > >> > > > > other > >> > > > > > >> operations such as ACL change. > >> > > > > > >> Second, zk is used as a external storage now since we do > not > >> > > > > > >> depend > >> > > > on > >> > > > > > zk > >> > > > > > >> watcher any more, it will be much easier to implement a > >> 'table > >> > > > based' > >> > > > > > >> replication peer/queue storage. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Please vote: > >> > > > > > >> [+1] Agree > >> > > > > > >> [-1] Disagree > >> > > > > > >> [0] Neutral > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Thanks. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- Appy > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
