Jenkins build is back to normal : HBase-0.92 #406

See

Re: 0.92.2?

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Luke Lu wrote: > Looks like the workload A issue was due to an incorrect recordcount > specified for 0.92 runs, as I asked for more details. AFAICT, 0.92 is > significantly faster than 0.90 on a 3 (hbase/hdfs) +1 (ycsb) node > cluster. Sorry for the noise and thank

Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-TRUNK-on-Hadoop-2.0.0 #4

See Changes: [ramkrishna] HBASE-5806 Handle split region related failures on master restart and RS restart (Chinna Rao) [ramkrishna] HBASE-5957 Mismatch with config param name in xml and code (Anoop)

Re: 0.92.2?

Looks like the workload A issue was due to an incorrect recordcount specified for 0.92 runs, as I asked for more details. AFAICT, 0.92 is significantly faster than 0.90 on a 3 (hbase/hdfs) +1 (ycsb) node cluster. Sorry for the noise and thanks for the great work :) On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM,

Re: 0.92.2?

FWIW we're running in production with a snapshot of 0.92 from May 8th (so we're missing HBASE-5973 and 5922) and we don't see any issues. I think we should release a first RC. J-D On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Stack wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Luke Lu wrote: >> Any update on

Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-0.92 #405

See Changes: [ramkrishna] HBASE-5806 Handle split region related failures on master restart and RS restart(Chinna rao) -- [...truncated 1775 lines...] Running org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.wal.

Jenkins build is back to normal : HBase-TRUNK #2885

See

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-TRUNK #2884

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Apache Jenkins Server wrote: > See > Anyone know why this failed? St.Ack

Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-TRUNK #2884

See Changes: [ramkrishna] HBASE-5957 Mismatch with config param name in xml and code (Anoop) -- [...truncated 8451 lines...] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 14.898 sec

RE: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download

+1 on adding release notes. New RC is not required and even my intention was not to take new RC. Just a documentation on this would be enough. Regards Ram > -Original Message- > From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:48 PM > To: dev@hbase.apache.org

Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:15 AM, lars hofhansl wrote: > It's default off. I'd say we just say it's an experimental feature in the > release notes. +1 for calling it experimental in notes and docs, and not removing it. Replication was in an experimental state for quite some time, too, and we didn

Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download

It's default off. I'd say we just say it's an experimental feature in the release notes. Are you saying we should have another RC? There was other stuff that went into 0.94 after I cut the RC, so that would potentially need to stabilize if I cut a new RC now. -- Lars _

Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download

Thanks for sharing this information, Ramkrishna. Dictionary WAL compression makes replication not functional - see details in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5778 I would vote for the removal of Dictionary WAL compression until we make it more robust and consuming much less memory. O

RE: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download

Hi One small observation after giving +1 on the RC. The WAL compression feature causes OOME and causes Full GC. The problem is, if we have 1500 regions and I need to create recovered.edits for each of the region (I don’t have much data in the regions (~300MB)). Now when I try to build the diction