The release note is also ready now. Any other concerns?
Thanks. 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月17日周一 下午6:31写道： > HBASE-22590 has been resolved and HBASE-21512 has been rebased. Still need > one more vote... > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月15日周六 下午9:06写道： > >> When filling the release note, I found that I'd better do some works on >> master first, such as removing the deprecated methods in Table interface, >> so the release note will be clean. And also I seem to forget changing the >> javadoc for some methods in the Admin interface since their behavior have >> been changed, for example, Admin.split will return after the split is done, >> and in the past it will return immediately after master received the >> request. >> >> Let me finish these things first. >> >> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月15日周六 上午8:32写道： >> >>> HBASE-22577 is almost there. But I think I still need one more +1 here >>> so I can merge HBASE-21512 back... >>> >>> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:54写道： >>> >>>> After applying HBASE-22577 the performance is good enough now. And the >>>> YCSB workloada also shows that there are no big differences on performance. >>>> Please see the comments on HBASE-22564 for more details. >>>> >>>> Will get HBASE-22577 in soon, and resolve the pending issues such >>>> as HBASE-22237. >>>> >>>> Any other concerns? Thanks. >>>> >>>> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 上午11:27写道： >>>> >>>>> It’s hadoop-2.8.5. >>>>> >>>>> But I do not think it makes much difference, we just use the same >>>>> server setup, only different clients implementation. >>>>> >>>>> Sakthi <sakthivel.azh...@gmail.com>于2019年6月14日 周五10:18写道： >>>>> >>>>>> Duo, >>>>>> >>>>>> What version on Hadoop did you use in the 5 node cluster for your >>>>>> comparisons? For what it's worth, I would also like to try out the >>>>>> PE/LTT >>>>>> comparison of both the clients. Or, if any other form of comparison >>>>>> would >>>>>> be helpful then I'm open for suggestions and would like to give it a >>>>>> try. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sakthi >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:55 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > It will be transparent, mostly, the interface is still kept. There >>>>>> are some >>>>>> > incompatible behaviors, for example, now admin.split will wait till >>>>>> the >>>>>> > split is actually done, while in the old time it will return >>>>>> immediately >>>>>> > after we send the request to master. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>于2019年6月13日 周四23:26写道： >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > Hi, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Is this going to change the way the client should be called? Or >>>>>> it will >>>>>> > be >>>>>> > > mostly transparent replacement? >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Thanks, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > JMS >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 02:13, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>>>> palomino...@gmail.com> a >>>>>> > > écrit : >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > > Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> 于2019年6月12日周三 下午10:00写道： >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > Nice perf results! >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22237 looks like >>>>>> it's >>>>>> > also >>>>>> > > > > good to be resolved, given >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE%20Nightly/job/HBASE-21512/279/testReport/ >>>>>> > > > > (TestLogLevel will be fixed on your rebase/merge). >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > Poking through the PR, it looks like the big change is that >>>>>> we're >>>>>> > also >>>>>> > > > > defaulting over to use the >>>>>> [sync]ConnectionOverAsyncConnection. Good >>>>>> > to >>>>>> > > > > do it now to help iron things out more. Calling it out to >>>>>> make sure >>>>>> > > > > others see this. Is it still possible to use the old >>>>>> Connection impl? >>>>>> > > (I >>>>>> > > > > think the answer is "no"). >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > No, all the code have been purged... >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > Only other question: are there updates for the book that >>>>>> should >>>>>> > happen >>>>>> > > > > before you move past this? What about "knobs" for configuring >>>>>> > retries, >>>>>> > > > > internal thread pool(s)? Anything like that you think would be >>>>>> > > important >>>>>> > > > > for people to tweak? >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > Will fill a 'fat' release note soon. I think there will be less >>>>>> > > parameters >>>>>> > > > to tune, as we do not need any thread pools unless you are using >>>>>> > > > coprocessor related methods(which are deprecated and we >>>>>> recommend users >>>>>> > > to >>>>>> > > > use the ones in async client interface). The retry config is >>>>>> still the >>>>>> > > same >>>>>> > > > with the old sync client. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > +1 >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > On 6/11/19 5:48 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: >>>>>> > > > > > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22564 >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月11日周二 >>>>>> 下午3:53写道： >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >> Let me do a YCSB test about the performance. >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> Stack <st...@duboce.net> 于2019年6月11日周二 下午1:15写道： >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >>> +1 on merge from me. >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> It removes the complicated multi-threaded edifice we'd >>>>>> built >>>>>> > > > > client-side >>>>>> > > > > >>> to >>>>>> > > > > >>> fake an async behavior replacing it with an actual async >>>>>> > > > > implementation. >>>>>> > > > > >>> Users will immediately notice a radical plummet in >>>>>> working thread >>>>>> > > > > count on >>>>>> > > > > >>> the client side. >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> For the cleanup of old idioms alone, in test code in >>>>>> particular, >>>>>> > > the >>>>>> > > > > patch >>>>>> > > > > >>> is worth merging. >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> Any perf numbers to share comparing old sync and async? >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> What about difference in operation? Is there any >>>>>> commentary or >>>>>> > doc >>>>>> > > or >>>>>> > > > > >>> release note to point at? >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> Thanks, >>>>>> > > > > >>> S >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 6:59 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>>>> > > palomino...@gmail.com >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> wrote: >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21512 >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> "Reimplement sync client based on async client" >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> The jira title tells everything. This is what I promised >>>>>> when I >>>>>> > > > first >>>>>> > > > > >>>> introduced the async client in HBase, about three years >>>>>> ago, >>>>>> > that >>>>>> > > > the >>>>>> > > > > >>> sync >>>>>> > > > > >>>> client can be implemented on top of the async client, so >>>>>> we can >>>>>> > > > remove >>>>>> > > > > >>> the >>>>>> > > > > >>>> old sync client implementation, which can reduce our >>>>>> client code >>>>>> > > > base >>>>>> > > > > a >>>>>> > > > > >>>> lot. >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> I've already opened a PR here, and received several >>>>>> > > feedback(thanks >>>>>> > > > > >>> stack!) >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/287 >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> It shows that we add 8,663 lines and remove 31,386 lines. >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> This is the flaky dashboard for this branch >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/HBASE-21512/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/dashboard.html >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> With the recent efforts I think it is getting better. >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> Will fill the release note soon, it will be a fat one. >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> Please vote >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> [] +1 >>>>>> > > > > >>>> [] +0/-0 >>>>>> > > > > >>>> [] -1 Do not merge the branch back because ... >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks. Any suggestions are welcomed. >>>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>
