Hi
We (it includes the test team here) 0.94 RC and carried out various
operations on it.
Puts, Scans, and all the restart scenarios (using kill -9 also). Even the
encoding stuffs were tested and carried out our basic test scenarios. Seems
to work fine.
Did not test rolling restart with 0.92. By
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 dont have much data in the regions (~300MB)).
Now when I try to build the
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.
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
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:15 AM, lars hofhansl lhofha...@yahoo.com 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
+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;
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK/2884/changes
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
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Apache Jenkins Server
jenk...@builds.apache.org wrote:
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK/2884/changes
Anyone know why this failed?
St.Ack
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK/2885/changes
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-0.92/405/changes
Changes:
[ramkrishna] HBASE-5806 Handle split region related failures on master restart
and RS restart(Chinna rao)
--
[...truncated 1775 lines...]
Running
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 st...@duboce.net wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Luke Lu
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
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK-on-Hadoop-2.0.0/4/changes
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)
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Luke Lu l...@apache.org 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
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-0.92/406/
15 matches
Mail list logo
