[VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are addressed in this release. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
+1 ran some load tests and everything looks good. no measurable change in performance from last release. On 03/19/2010 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are addressed in this release. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
+1, ran unit tests plus some manual tests, including some tests involving observers. On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: +1 ran some load tests and everything looks good. no measurable change in performance from last release. On 03/19/2010 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are addressed in this release. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
+1 In addition to the std stuff (unit tests etc...) I've run a number of deployment tests, including clusters of size 1/3/5/6/7/9/11/12/13 and they are all working fine. Patrick Patrick Hunt wrote: I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are addressed in this release. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
+1 Did some unit testing on different machine configs. Also, did some smoke testing with a cluster size of 3, running some updates against it and bringing one machine down at a time. Seems to work! Thanks mahadev On 3/24/10 9:36 AM, "Patrick Hunt" wrote: > +1 > > In addition to the std stuff (unit tests etc...) I've run a number of > deployment tests, including clusters of size 1/3/5/6/7/9/11/12/13 and > they are all working fine. > > Patrick > > Patrick Hunt wrote: >> I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are >> addressed in this release. >> >> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the >> *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** >> >> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ >> >> Should we release this? >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >> >>
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
+1 All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and nothing odd looking. Looks like no issue having a zk 3.3.0 client talk to a 3.2.2 ensemble. Requires small mods to hbase other than dropping new zk jar into hbase/lib in place of zk 3.2.2: HBASE-2380. St.Ack On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are > addressed in this release. > > *** Please download, test and VOTE before the > *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** > > http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ > > Should we release this? > > Patrick > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
With 5 +1's (3 from PMC members) and no -1's the vote passes. Congratulations all! I will work to finish the release process and send announcement emails when it is completed. Regards, Patrick Stack wrote: +1 All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and nothing odd looking. Looks like no issue having a zk 3.3.0 client talk to a 3.2.2 ensemble. Requires small mods to hbase other than dropping new zk jar into hbase/lib in place of zk 3.2.2: HBASE-2380. St.Ack On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are addressed in this release. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
Stack, you can't use a new client with an old server. We support b/w compatibility at the server level (new server works with old client) but not the other way around. You would have to upgrade the server and client at the same time, or upgrade the servers (rolling upgrade) then upgrade the clients. Patrick Stack wrote: +1 All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and nothing odd looking. Looks like no issue having a zk 3.3.0 client talk to a 3.2.2 ensemble. Requires small mods to hbase other than dropping new zk jar into hbase/lib in place of zk 3.2.2: HBASE-2380. St.Ack On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are addressed in this release. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ Should we release this? Patrick
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
Patrick just let me know that newer client talking to older server is not supported. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. Was sort of surprised it worked at all so just noted this aspect of my zk 3.3.0 RC0 eval. Congrats on new release lads, St.Ack P.S. Below is backup of my assertion 3.3.0 client basically works against 3.2.2 ensemble: In client log I see this: 2010-03-25 12:23:57,670 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: Client environment:zookeeper.version=3.3.0-925362, built on 03/19/2010 18:38 GMT ... Then this: 2010-03-25 12:23:57,672 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: Initiating client connection, connectString=sv2borg165:2181,sv2borg166:2181,sv2borg167:2181,sv2borg169:2181,sv2borg164:2181 sessionTimeout=6 watcher=Thread[Thread-0,5,main] 2010-03-25 12:23:57,683 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Opening socket connection to server sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181 2010-03-25 12:23:57,686 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Socket connection established to sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181, initiating session .. Over on 166 I see... 2010-03-25 12:23:57,697 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Connected to /10.20.20.185:46331 lastZxid 0 2010-03-25 12:23:57,725 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Creating new session 0x3266d5140d70759 2010-03-25 12:23:57,726 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Finished init of 0x3266d5140d70759 valid:true 2010-03-25 12:25:07,305 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Processing stat command from /10.20.20.185:60661 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 WARN org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Exception causing close of session 0x0 due to java.io.IOException: Responded to info probe 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: closing session:0x0 NIOServerCnxn: java.nio.channels.SocketChannel[connected local=/10.20.20.166:2181 remote=/10.20.20.185:60661] ... If I do stat over there I see Zookeeper version: 3.2.2-888565, built on 12/08/2009 21:51 GMT... On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > Stack, you can't use a new client with an old server. We support b/w > compatibility at the server level (new server works with old client) but not > the other way around. You would have to upgrade the server and client at the > same time, or upgrade the servers (rolling upgrade) then upgrade the > clients. > > Patrick > > Stack wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and >> nothing odd looking. Looks like no issue having a zk 3.3.0 client >> talk to a 3.2.2 ensemble. >> >> Requires small mods to hbase other than dropping new zk jar into >> hbase/lib in place of zk 3.2.2: HBASE-2380. >> >> St.Ack >> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: >>> >>> I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are >>> addressed in this release. >>> >>> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the >>> *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ >>> >>> Should we release this? >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
Some background on this: In order to add new features (sometimes to fix bugs) we need to change the client lib in a non-b/w compatible way, this is infrequent, but there's just no way around this in some cases. At the server level we always ensure (and even in extreme cases this might not be possible, but so far it has) that a new server can talk to an old (at least 1 version back) client. Additionally we also ensure that a new server can talk to an old server, this allows "rolling upgrade" of the ensemble. WRT this approach I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know from your own/prior projects. In zk THIS IS CRITICAL to our primary project level goals of "high availability". It would be laughable if we bill ourselves as highly available but "sorry, you need to shut everything down then upgrade everything to a new version". That's just not acceptable. The roadmap has some detail on this, but it's out of date from our current practices. We also need to include this information in our release notes. http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/Roadmap https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-727 Stack, in your specific case you are seeing that 3.3 client works fine with 3.2 server. In 3.3 we added a new API method to the client, which sends a new message type to the server. As long as you don't use this method (getchildren2) it will probably work fine. However, we don't officially support this configuration as we don't design for this case (the changes) and we don't test for this. It may be that there was some semantic change at the protocol (client->server protocol) level, that may not be exposed except in unusual cases. Perhaps if we had more resources we could verify this case (3.3C with 3.2S) but today we do not, so essentially it would be "use at your own risk". Hope this helps. If you have further insights, esp wrt HBase using ZK please feel free to comment. Regards, Patrick Stack wrote: Patrick just let me know that newer client talking to older server is not supported. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. Was sort of surprised it worked at all so just noted this aspect of my zk 3.3.0 RC0 eval. Congrats on new release lads, St.Ack P.S. Below is backup of my assertion 3.3.0 client basically works against 3.2.2 ensemble: In client log I see this: 2010-03-25 12:23:57,670 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: Client environment:zookeeper.version=3.3.0-925362, built on 03/19/2010 18:38 GMT ... Then this: 2010-03-25 12:23:57,672 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: Initiating client connection, connectString=sv2borg165:2181,sv2borg166:2181,sv2borg167:2181,sv2borg169:2181,sv2borg164:2181 sessionTimeout=6 watcher=Thread[Thread-0,5,main] 2010-03-25 12:23:57,683 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Opening socket connection to server sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181 2010-03-25 12:23:57,686 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Socket connection established to sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181, initiating session .. Over on 166 I see... 2010-03-25 12:23:57,697 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Connected to /10.20.20.185:46331 lastZxid 0 2010-03-25 12:23:57,725 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Creating new session 0x3266d5140d70759 2010-03-25 12:23:57,726 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Finished init of 0x3266d5140d70759 valid:true 2010-03-25 12:25:07,305 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Processing stat command from /10.20.20.185:60661 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 WARN org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Exception causing close of session 0x0 due to java.io.IOException: Responded to info probe 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: closing session:0x0 NIOServerCnxn: java.nio.channels.SocketChannel[connected local=/10.20.20.166:2181 remote=/10.20.20.185:60661] ... If I do stat over there I see Zookeeper version: 3.2.2-888565, built on 12/08/2009 21:51 GMT... On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: Stack, you can't use a new client with an old server. We support b/w compatibility at the server level (new server works with old client) but not the other way around. You would have to upgrade the server and client at the same time, or upgrade the servers (rolling upgrade) then upgrade the clients. Patrick Stack wrote: +1 All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and nothing odd looking. Looks like no issue having a zk 3.3.0 client talk to a 3.2.2 ensemble. Requires small mods to hbase other than dropping new zk jar into hbase/lib in place of zk 3.2.2: HBASE-2380. St.Ack On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: I have created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.3.0. Over 180 JIRAs are addressed in this release. *** Please download, test and VOTE before the *** vote closes 1pm PT on Wednesday, March 24.*** http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.3.0-candidate-0/ Should we release this?
Re: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.3.0 (candidate 0)
Thanks Patrick for the detail (Support of the quality below puts us hbasistas at ease about our deciscion to bet the farm on zk making our next major release). St.Ack On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > Some background on this: In order to add new features (sometimes to fix > bugs) we need to change the client lib in a non-b/w compatible way, this is > infrequent, but there's just no way around this in some cases. At the server > level we always ensure (and even in extreme cases this might not be > possible, but so far it has) that a new server can talk to an old (at least > 1 version back) client. Additionally we also ensure that a new server can > talk to an old server, this allows "rolling upgrade" of the ensemble. WRT > this approach I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know > from your own/prior projects. > > In zk THIS IS CRITICAL to our primary project level goals of "high > availability". It would be laughable if we bill ourselves as highly > available but "sorry, you need to shut everything down then upgrade > everything to a new version". That's just not acceptable. > > The roadmap has some detail on this, but it's out of date from our current > practices. We also need to include this information in our release notes. > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/Roadmap > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-727 > > Stack, in your specific case you are seeing that 3.3 client works fine with > 3.2 server. In 3.3 we added a new API method to the client, which sends a > new message type to the server. As long as you don't use this method > (getchildren2) it will probably work fine. However, we don't officially > support this configuration as we don't design for this case (the changes) > and we don't test for this. It may be that there was some semantic change at > the protocol (client->server protocol) level, that may not be exposed except > in unusual cases. Perhaps if we had more resources we could verify this case > (3.3C with 3.2S) but today we do not, so essentially it would be "use at > your own risk". > > Hope this helps. If you have further insights, esp wrt HBase using ZK please > feel free to comment. > > Regards, > > Patrick > > Stack wrote: >> >> Patrick just let me know that newer client talking to older server is >> not supported. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. Was >> sort of surprised it worked at all so just noted this aspect of my zk >> 3.3.0 RC0 eval. >> >> Congrats on new release lads, >> St.Ack >> >> P.S. Below is backup of my assertion 3.3.0 client basically works >> against 3.2.2 ensemble: >> >> >> In client log I see this: >> >> 2010-03-25 12:23:57,670 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: Client >> environment:zookeeper.version=3.3.0-925362, built on 03/19/2010 18:38 >> GMT >> >> ... >> >> Then this: >> >> 2010-03-25 12:23:57,672 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper: >> Initiating client connection, >> >> connectString=sv2borg165:2181,sv2borg166:2181,sv2borg167:2181,sv2borg169:2181,sv2borg164:2181 >> sessionTimeout=6 watcher=Thread[Thread-0,5,main] >> 2010-03-25 12:23:57,683 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Opening >> socket connection to server sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181 >> 2010-03-25 12:23:57,686 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn: Socket >> connection established to sv2borg166/10.20.20.166:2181, initiating >> session >> >> .. >> >> Over on 166 I see... >> >> 2010-03-25 12:23:57,697 INFO >> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Connected to >> /10.20.20.185:46331 lastZxid 0 >> 2010-03-25 12:23:57,725 INFO >> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Creating new session >> 0x3266d5140d70759 >> 2010-03-25 12:23:57,726 INFO >> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Finished init of >> 0x3266d5140d70759 valid:true >> 2010-03-25 12:25:07,305 INFO >> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Processing stat command >> from /10.20.20.185:60661 >> 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 WARN >> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: Exception causing close of >> session 0x0 due to java.io.IOException: Responded to info probe >> 2010-03-25 12:25:07,306 INFO >> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn: closing session:0x0 >> NIOServerCnxn: java.nio.channels.SocketChannel[connected >> local=/10.20.20.166:2181 remote=/10.20.20.185:60661] >> >> ... >> >> If I do stat over there I see Zookeeper version: 3.2.2-888565, built >> on 12/08/2009 21:51 GMT... >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: >>> >>> Stack, you can't use a new client with an old server. We support b/w >>> compatibility at the server level (new server works with old client) but >>> not >>> the other way around. You would have to upgrade the server and client at >>> the >>> same time, or upgrade the servers (rolling upgrade) then upgrade the >>> clients. >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> Stack wrote: +1 All hbase tests pass with 3.3.0 in place. I ran small loading and nothing odd looking. Looks like no iss
