That's a fair point, but the main point I was trying to make using
that example was that there are concrete efforts which have been made
to inch closer to better compatibility guarantees, and
compatibility... specifically within a supported release line... is
something that we routinely consider
As long as v1.4.2 client code is compatible with all subsequent releases, I
foresee no problems. Or write a 1.4.2 to 1.X.X proxy layer.
*this is a poe*
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
That's a fair point, but the main point I was trying to make using
On April 17, 2014, 5:34 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
Are you planning to wire this up in pieces? It would be nice to be able to
see how this changes the Accumulo.init(...) method which currently sets up
logging for each process.
I'll take a look at init() to see how it fits in. My hope was
On April 17, 2014, 5:21 p.m., Vikram Srivastava wrote:
We should also test that using the new Appender works fine and daemons are
able to send logs to Monitor. Should we add a MacIT for that?
Also, should we update the example log configuration files to use the new
Appender?
On April 17, 2014, 5:34 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
Are you planning to wire this up in pieces? It would be nice to be able to
see how this changes the Accumulo.init(...) method which currently sets up
logging for each process.
Bill Havanki wrote:
I'll take a look at init() to see
http://www.r-bloggers.com/ - I wish I had known about this site while our
conversation was happening. I'm posting it just as an example of lots of
bloggers contributing to a common topic.
Sure thing Dave, happy to.
We need to determine an initial list of people with posting privileges.
I'll start with Dave and myself. If any other PMC member wants in, just let
me know by COB eastern time, and I'll add you to the infra ticket to
establish the blog. Don't worry if you miss out,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
I know this got very long, especially for a Friday. Please bear with me.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
You seem to keep insisting that we don't have consensus on basic API
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
I know this got very long, especially for a Friday. Please bear with me.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20465/
---
(Updated April 18, 2014, 3:14 p.m.)
Review request for accumulo and Josh
At the moment all of our logs about problems balancing are at DEBUG.
Given the impact to a cluster when this happens (skewing load onto few
servers, in some case severely), I'd like to raise it to WARN so that it
surfaces for operators in the Monitor and in the non-debug log.
Thought I'd do a
-1 due to ACCUMULO-2700
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2700
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Just ingested 500M entries with CI and verified them successfully too.
On 4/17/14, 6:59 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
+1
* Built and tested (unit
-1 due to ACCUMULO-2700
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Just ingested 500M entries with CI and verified them successfully too.
On 4/17/14, 6:59 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
+1
* Built and tested (unit and integration) src tarball against Apache
Hadoop
-1
Due to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2700
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
Accumulo Developers,
Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.6.0.
Git Commit:
-1 because of ACCUMULO-2700
I was getting ready to +1 before Christopher found 2700
I did the following checks
* sigs @ hashes of bin.tgz are ok
* ran through a few examples and found ACCUMULO-2691
* upgrade 1.5.1 to 1.6.0 RC2 went ok
* built native lib ok
Ran the following test on 20 node
Filed for blog creation: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7602
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bill Havanki bhava...@clouderagovt.comwrote:
Sure thing Dave, happy to.
We need to determine an initial list of people with posting privileges.
I'll start with Dave and myself. If any
I'd like initial posting privileges. Thanks for setting this up!
On Apr 18, 2014 11:23 AM, Bill Havanki bhava...@clouderagovt.com wrote:
Sure thing Dave, happy to.
We need to determine an initial list of people with posting privileges.
I'll start with Dave and myself. If any other PMC member
-1
I would hesitate to put *any* message at WARN. It is normal for balancing
to take a little while, especially for some of my users who have their own
balancing algorithm.
Users feel the need to fix the problem; after all, it's there in big scary
yellow on the monitor page. I don't like
And for proper form: -1 due to ACCUMULO-2700.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Bill Havanki bhava...@clouderagovt.comwrote:
-1
Dogpile!
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Keith Turner ke...@deenlo.com wrote:
-1 because of ACCUMULO-2700
I was getting ready to +1 before Christopher found
Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years
old.
We could consider the use of markers to throw in more metadata about the
relevance of a particular log message.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
I also try to limit what goes at higher warning levels. One of my goals
over hte next few months is to
+1
Actually. Anything with out a fixVersion in 1.5+ should be flagged to make
sure it's still an issue.
--
Sean
On Apr 18, 2014 11:03 PM, David Medinets david.medin...@gmail.com wrote:
Opps. Sorry, I did my filtering badly. There are 68 tickets over 2 years
old.
22 matches
Mail list logo
