SQL layer over Accumulo?

Hello, Would there be any interest in developing a SQL-layer on top of Accumulo? I'm part of the Apache Phoenix project and we've built a similar system on top of HBase. I wanted to see if there'd be interest on your end at working with us to generalizing our client and provide in a server that wou

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

+1 b +0 c On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, John Vines wrote: > +1 b > +0 c > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bill Havanki >wrote: > > > b, and prefer c over d but not overly so > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey > wrote: > > > > > B and C (though I would like subta

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

+1 b +0 c On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bill Havanki wrote: > b, and prefer c over d but not overly so > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last) > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser > wrote

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

b, and prefer c over d but not overly so On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last) > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > b, please. > > > > I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last) On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > b, please. > > I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done > previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way. > > > On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

b, please. I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way. On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote: All, Mike had an objection to the inclusion of 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes in the CHANGES file for 1.6.0. That objection wa

CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

All, Mike had an objection to the inclusion of 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes in the CHANGES file for 1.6.0. That objection was based on his understanding of a previous thread. I'm not sure there was ever consensus on what to do, and I had a different understanding of the results of that thread. I'd like

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

-1 because of issue w/ license files. Opened ACCUMULO-2749. I am not sure this should hold up 1.6.0 unless we can figure out what the problem is in short order. On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

There was a discussion about CHANGES. I am not sure there could truly be consensus w/o a vote on that particular subject. I don't think its something that should hold up 1.6.0 On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Christopher wrote: > Going to vote +0 myself, for the license issues Mike points o

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

> On April 28, 2014, 6:29 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > Ship It! Actually... before you ship it, it'd be nice if there were a small comment explaining the assume usage in the event expansion test... just to explain why it doesn't work under some Eclipse environments. - Christopher ---

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20790/#review41644 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Christopher Tubbs On April 28, 2014, 6:11 p.

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20790/ --- (Updated April 28, 2014, 10:11 p.m.) Review request for accumulo. Changes ---

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

+1 * Signatures and hashes validated. * Source artifact matches given commit, modulo previously mentioned .gitignore file. * I agree that previous tests needn't be invalidated by changes introduced in this RC * Did one last run through the ITs with each of the hadoop profiles * I am aware of conce

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

-1 Reading over the legal/licensing docs the ASF has up made me come to the conclusion that we should not be making a release with the files that Mike outlined missing the header. I'm still working on tests locally to verify things which have otherwise been going well. I'll try to report back

Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Christopher wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > > Forking thread for discussion. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Christopher > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 28,

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

I am seeing consistently slower write rates when comparing 1.5.1 and 1.6.0. Following env : * hadoop 2.2.0 * Zookeeper 3.4.5 * Centos 6 (native, not a VM) * using examples/3GB/native-standalone config * setting tserver.mutation.queue.max 4M * I am running test/system/test1/inge

Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > Forking thread for discussion. > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Christopher > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob > wrote: > >> > -1 > >> > > >> > > >> >

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

Going to vote +0 myself, for the license issues Mike points out. I don't have an opinion about the CHANGES file, but I'd like consensus before changing it again. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > -1 > > The good: > > * Ve

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20790/ --- (Updated April 28, 2014, 9:14 p.m.) Review request for accumulo. Changes

Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > Forking thread for discussion. > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Christopher wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob wrote: >> > -1 >> > >> > The good: >> > >> > * Verified all signatures and checksums. >> > * Ran continuous

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

> On April 28, 2014, 8:57 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/util/shell/command/HistoryCommandTest.java, > > lines 76-81 > > > > > > This test fails. > > Christopher Tubbs w

Re: Hadoop Summit (San Jose June 3-5)

Just announced, an Accumulo Birds of a Feather session at the Hadoop Summit: http://www.meetup.com/Hadoop-Summit-Community-San-Jose/events/179840512/ It looks like we have an hour and a half, exact schedule TBD. Feel free to contact me if there is any particular content you'd like to see at this

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

> On April 28, 2014, 4:57 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/util/shell/command/HistoryCommandTest.java, > > lines 76-81 > > > > > > This test fails. I should have clarified

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20790/#review41635 --- core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/util/shell/command/Hist

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

+1 On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.6.0. > > Git Commit: 95ddea99e120102ce3316efbbe4948b574e59bc3 > Branch: 1.6.0-RC4 > > Staging repo: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgap

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

-0 With the spate of blockers uncovered during the rc process so far [1][2][3], I'm uncomfortable approving the release so quickly after the most recent one was resolved. It's true there was a measure of luck in these being found when they were, but they appear to be indications that the code hasn

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20790/ --- (Updated April 28, 2014, 7:40 p.m.) Review request for accumulo. Changes

Re: Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20790/#review41625 --- core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/util/shell/command/Hist

Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

Forking thread for discussion. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > -1 > > > > The good: > > > > * Verified all signatures and checksums. > > * Ran continuous ingest with binary artifact + custom built native maps. > > > >

Review Request 20790: ACCUMULO-2742 offset history command by one

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20790/ --- Review request for accumulo. Bugs: ACCUMULO-2742 https://issues.apache.org/

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > -1 > > The good: > > * Verified all signatures and checksums. > * Ran continuous ingest with binary artifact + custom built native maps. > > > The issues, but not enough to vote against: > > * Encountered ACCUMULO-2741. > * Encountered ACCUMULO-

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

On 4/28/14, 12:20 PM, Mike Drob wrote: -1 The good: * Verified all signatures and checksums. * Ran continuous ingest with binary artifact + custom built native maps. The issues, but not enough to vote against: * Encountered ACCUMULO-2741. * Encountered ACCUMULO-2742. * Source artifact miss

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

-1 The good: * Verified all signatures and checksums. * Ran continuous ingest with binary artifact + custom built native maps. The issues, but not enough to vote against: * Encountered ACCUMULO-2741. * Encountered ACCUMULO-2742. * Source artifact missing .gitignore ** This has been discussed,

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

Please change the subject if you're going to change this into a conversation about when to start votes. This subject is for votes for an RC candidate. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:30 AM, William Slacum < wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net> wrote: > I was concerned about the lack of activity. I don't h

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

I was concerned about the lack of activity. I don't have a personal need for an extension, but I do recall a discussion about Friday RC's potentially being problematic in the past, which is why I brought it up. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Christopher wrote: > I don't know what everyone's

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

I don't know what everyone's schedules are. If the point of a vote was to begin performing testing, I'd say yes, or if this were RC1, I'd say yes (or extended it to 4 days so it's not a surprise). However, since we're already in the RC mindset, having had 3 prior ones already, an RC4 was already ex

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

We also have a tendency to vote at the last minute anyway, regardless of weekend or weekday. I hope that's because everybody is busy running tests. :) On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > I think Friday was fine. I know I've just been silent due to recovery time > from the sur

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

I think Friday was fine. I know I've just been silent due to recovery time from the surge of activity around making sure RC4 would be ready. I suspect it might be the same for others. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:24 AM, William Slacum < wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net> wrote: > Do you think doing th

Re: Beyond 1.6

Thanks for setting out the discussion, Josh. I agree with you on all of these issues. My thoughts: * +1 on "2.0.0". We absolutely could use the extra "room" for versioning. * The closer we stick to semantic versioning [1] (or some other well-known versioning spec ... are there any?), the better.

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4

Do you think doing this on a Friday was a good idea? I know that point came up earlier, and it was possibly due to already discovered issues that would fail the release, but I think the lack of traffic on here is significant. On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Christopher wrote: > Correction on t