Hang,
Il giorno dom 25 giu 2023 alle ore 09:47 Hang Chen
ha scritto:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> More than one year ago, we had a discussion[1] about reverting the
> RocksDB version for branch-4.14, and the main concern is that RocksDB
> 6.17.3 breaks runtime compatibility with older versions and it
> requires the code to be recompiled. Lari did a great investigation and
> you can find more details in this Apache Pulsar pull
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14962. In the discussion, we
> have two solutions, and we choose solution 1 in the end.
> 1) Do not upgrade RocksDB in BookKeeper 4.14.5 and give the user which
> uses RocksDB an easy path to upgrade from BK 4.14.4 to 4.14.5
> 2) Upgrade RocksDB and requires to all the BK users to pay attention
> to the RocksDB version they have in the classpath. The risk is to have
> runtime errors which will require them to rebuild the application and
> redeploy their services.
>
> However, we found two issues about the current RocksDB version
> (6.16.4) on branch-4.14
> - In our production environment, we found both RocksDB 6.10.2 and
> 6.16.4 has native memory leak issue[2] and after upgraded the RocksDB
> version to 6.29.4.1, the memory leak issue was fixed.
> - We have upgraded the RocksDB version to 7.9.2 since 4.16.0, and the
> RocksDB can only rollback to 6.27+. It means BookKeeper 4.16.0+ can
> rollback to 4.15.x (RocksDB 6.29.4.1) but can't rollback to 4.14.x
> (RocksDB 6.16.4) if we don't upgrade the RocksDB version to 6.29.4.1
> for branch-4.14
>
> The main reason for rolling back RocksDB version for branch-4.14 is
> that RocksDB 6.17.3 breaks runtime compatibility with older versions
> and it requires the code to be recompiled.
If this is the only reason then I think that it is not a problem, because
BookKeeper users don't use RocksDB directly, the RocksDB APIs are not part of
BK APIs.
So one question is:
if I am on BK 4.14.7 and I upgrade to 4.14.8 with the new RocksDB
version 6.29.4.1,
can I rollback to 4.14.7 if I have some problems ?
if the answer is "yes" then I am supportive of this upgrade
Thanks for pushing forward this initiative
Enrico
In my opinion, if users
> upgrade BookKeeper 4.14.7 to 4.14.8, which upgraded the RocksDB
> version from 6.16.4 to 6.29.4.1, they need to use the new BookKeeper
> package which has been compiled with new RocksDB version instead of
> replace the BookKeeper-server library directly. So it is safe to
> upgrade the RocksDB version. I have pushed one PR[4] to upgrade the
> RocksDB version to 6.29.4.1 for branch-4.14.
>
> Any concerns?
>
> Thanks,
> Hang
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/dsdltmoy5ggqx4oj7hrt13hqok80d4jf
> [2] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3507
> [3] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3734#issuecomment-1407626941
> [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3947
