i looked at that test and wondered if it it was just being brittle to time. I'm not a fan of those -there's one in abfs which is particularly bad for me- maybe we could see if the test can be cut as it is quite a slow one
On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 at 18:28, Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> wrote: > A minor update on ITestS3AConcurrentOps#testParallelRename > > I was previously connected to a vpn due to which bandwidth was getting > throttled earlier. Ran the test again today without vpn and had no issues > (earlier only 40% of the overall putObject were able to get completed > within timeout). > > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 4:29 AM Steve Loughran <ste...@cloudera.com.invalid > > > wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 at 01:47, Erik Krogen <xkro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Steve. I see now that the branch cut was way back in October so > I > > > definitely understand your frustration here! > > > > > > This made me realize that HDFS-16832 > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-16832>, which resolves a > > very > > > similar issue as the aforementioned HDFS-16923, is also missing from > the > > > RC. I erroneously marked it with a fix version of 3.3.5 -- it was > before > > > the initial 3.3.5 RC was made and I didn't notice the branch was cut. > My > > > apologies for that. I've pushed both HDFS-16832 and HDFS-16932 to > > > branch-3.3.5, so they are ready if/when an RC3 is cut. > > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > > > In the meantime, I tested for RC2 that a local cluster of NN + standby > + > > > observer + QJM works as expected for some basic HDFS commands. > > > > > > > OK. Could you have a go with a (locally built) patch release > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:52 AM Steve Loughran > > <ste...@cloudera.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> shipping broken hdfs isn't something we'd want to do, but if we can be > > >> confident that all other issues can be addressed in RC3 then I'd be > > happy. > > >> > > >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 05:09, Ayush Saxena <ayush...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I will highlight that I am completely fed up with doing this > release > > >> and > > >> >> really want to get it out the way -for which I depend on support > from > > >> as > > >> >> many other developers as possible. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > hmm, I can feel the pain. I tried to find if there is any config or > > any > > >> > workaround which can dodge this HDFS issue, but unfortunately > couldn't > > >> find > > >> > any. If someone does a getListing with needLocation and the file > > doesn't > > >> > exist at Observer he is gonna get a NPE rather than a FNF, It isn't > > just > > >> > the exception, AFAIK Observer reads have some logic around handling > > FNF > > >> > specifically, that it attempts Active NN or something like that in > > such > > >> > cases, So, that will be broken as well for this use case. > > >> > > > >> > Now, there is no denying the fact there is an issue on the HDFS > side, > > >> and > > >> > it has already been too much work on your side, so you can argue > that > > it > > >> > might not be a very frequent use case or so. It's your call. > > >> > > > >> > Just sharing, no intentions of saying you should do that, But as an > RM > > >> > "nobody" can force you for a new iteration of a RC, it is gonna be > > your > > >> > call and discretion. As far as I know a release can not be vetoed by > > >> > "anybody" as per the apache by laws.( > > >> > https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval). > > >> Even > > >> > our bylaws say that product release requires a Lazy Majority not a > > >> > Consensus Approval. > > >> > > > >> > So, you have a way out. You guys are 2 already and 1 I will give > you a > > >> > pass, in case you are really in a state: ''Get me out of this mess" > > >> state, > > >> > my basic validations on x86 & Aarch64 both are passing as of now, > > >> couldn't > > >> > reach the end for any of the RC's > > >> > > > >> > -Ayush > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 08:41, Viraj Jasani <vjas...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> While this RC is not going to be final, I just wanted to share the > > >> results > > >> >> of the testing I have done so far with RC1 and RC2. > > >> >> > > >> >> * Signature: ok > > >> >> * Checksum : ok > > >> >> * Rat check (1.8.0_341): ok > > >> >> - mvn clean apache-rat:check > > >> >> * Built from source (1.8.0_341): ok > > >> >> - mvn clean install -DskipTests > > >> >> * Built tar from source (1.8.0_341): ok > > >> >> - mvn clean package -Pdist -DskipTests -Dtar > > >> -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true > > >> >> > > >> >> * Built images using the tarball, installed and started all of > Hdfs, > > >> JHS > > >> >> and Yarn components > > >> >> * Ran Hbase (latest 2.5) tests against Hdfs, ran RowCounter > Mapreduce > > >> job > > >> >> * Hdfs CRUD tests > > >> >> * MapReduce wordcount job > > >> >> > > >> >> * Ran S3A tests with scale profile against us-west-2: > > >> >> mvn clean verify -Dparallel-tests -DtestsThreadCount=8 -Dscale > > >> >> > > >> >> ITestS3AConcurrentOps#testParallelRename is timing out after ~960s. > > >> This > > >> >> is > > >> >> consistently failing, looks like a recent regression. > > >> >> I was also able to repro on trunk, will create Jira. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:59 AM Steve Loughran > > >> >> <ste...@cloudera.com.invalid> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Mukund and I have put together a release candidate (RC2) for > Hadoop > > >> >> 3.3.5. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > We need anyone who can to verify the source and binary artifacts, > > >> >> > including those JARs staged on maven, the site documentation and > > the > > >> >> arm64 > > >> >> > tar file. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The RC is available at: > > >> >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hadoop/hadoop-3.3.5-RC2/ > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The git tag is release-3.3.5-RC2, commit 72f8c2a4888 > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The maven artifacts are staged at > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1369/ > > >> >> > > > >> >> > You can find my public key at: > > >> >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Change log > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hadoop/hadoop-3.3.5-RC2/CHANGELOG.md > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Release notes > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hadoop/hadoop-3.3.5-RC2/RELEASENOTES.md > > >> >> > > > >> >> > This is off branch-3.3 and is the first big release since 3.3.2. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > As to what changed since the RC1 attempt last week > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > 1. Version fixup in JIRA (credit due to Takanobu Asanuma > there) > > >> >> > 2. HADOOP-18470. Remove HDFS RBF text in the 3.3.5 index.md > file > > >> >> > 3. Revert "HADOOP-18590. Publish SBOM artifacts (#5281)" > > (creating > > >> >> build > > >> >> > issues in maven 3.9.0) > > >> >> > 4. HADOOP-18641. Cloud connector dependency and LICENSE fixup. > > >> >> (#5429) > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Note, because the arm64 binaries are built separately on a > > different > > >> >> > platform and JVM, their jar files may not match those of the x86 > > >> >> > release -and therefore the maven artifacts. I don't think this is > > >> >> > an issue (the ASF actually releases source tarballs, the binaries > > are > > >> >> > there for help only, though with the maven repo that's a bit > > >> blurred). > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The only way to be consistent would actually untar the > x86.tar.gz, > > >> >> > overwrite its binaries with the arm stuff, retar, sign and push > out > > >> >> > for the vote. Even automating that would be risky. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Please try the release and vote. The vote will run for 5 days. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Steve and Mukund > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
