Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 1.3.0 release candidate (RC0) is available

+1 Checked sigs. Downloaded everything looks good. License and Notice files look good. On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > +1 > > Checked sums and signatures: ok > Spot check LICENSE and NOTICE files: ok > Built from source (7u80): ok > RAT audit (7u80): ok > Unit test suite

Re: VOTE: Merge new Assignment Manager AMv2), HBASE-14614

+1 for merge On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:33 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been following this activity and I think it is good to be merged. > +1. Any test case failures can be fixed post merge (if any). > > Regards > Ram > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3

Re: [DISCUSS] No regions on Master node in 2.0

That doesn't solve the same problem. Dedicating a remote server for the system tables still means that all the master to system tables mutations and reads are done over rpc. That still means that the most important operations are competing for rpc queue time. On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Fran

Re: [DISCUSS] Merge hbase-metrics:oahh.metrics.impl into hbase-metrics-api

The weird module dance with reflection came from needing to extend inner hadoop classes on multiple different versions. This was back when HBase had to support hadoop < 1, hadoop 1.x, and hadoop 2.x. When we dropped older hadoop versions then things got easier. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Ape

Re: [DISCUSS] Merge hbase-metrics:oahh.metrics.impl into hbase-metrics-api

ct 24, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Apekshit Sharma wrote: > Hey Elliott, good to see you around :) > > Btw, this is new stuff added in HBASE-9774 which was committed to only 2.0. > Made it to 1.4 too later (HBASE-18060). > > -- Appy > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Elliott Clark

Re: Second release candidate for HBase 0.99.0 (RC1) is available. Please vote by 09/19/2014

+1 Checked sig ( I don't have your key directly signed, maybe we can fix that next meeting) undid tar. Checked layout Ran locally created tables and scanned data fine. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Stack wrote: > +1 > > + Checked signature and hash > + Undid src tar ball, built a tar ball, de

Re: [ANNOUNCE] HBase 0.99.0 (developer preview release) is now available for download

The prefix encoding fix too would be nice to have out in the wild on all branches. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Stack wrote: > When we thinking of doing a 0.99.1? if you don't have time, I could roll > one as your assistant Enis? Just say. Would be good to put up a new one > since master

Re: Submitting a patch for hbase-thrift?

Please don't change the ordering of fields, that's required for backwards compatibility. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ted Yu wrote: > Adding Tim and Lars who are familiar with thrift(2) modules. > > bq. Should the changes in these classes be part of my patch? > > Yes. > > Cheers > > On Wed,

Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.1 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 10/15/2014

+1 Downloaded Checked sig. Checked tar layout. Checked running locally. lgtm for a dev release. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > Can we get one more +1 of this please. > > If so, I will continue with the releasing the bits tomorrow. > Thanks, > Enis > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2

Re: Does HydraBase provide better failover time than HBase? Or HBase has better improvements in the later versions?

So right now the only running HydraBase is internal to Facebook. We can't really answer for certain about what it will look like when it's fully integrated into Apache's master HBase. With that caveat out of the way, Hydrabase is designed to improve reliability and performance in the face of hardw

Re: [VOTE] The 3rd HBase 0.98.8 release candidate (RC2) is available, vote closing 11/17/2014

+1 Tested it on an internal cluster with ITTBL On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > Performed same procedure as I did for RC1. > This time I ran test suite against hadoop-2 > TestStatusResource failed but passed when re-run. > > Cheers > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:15 PM, And

Re: Changing it so we do NOT archive hfiles by default

I can't speak for what Stack is seeing there. But I've seen this too. Basically master delete is sequential with one thread on one machine. Compactions are multi-threaded on multiple machines. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:21 PM, lars hofhansl wrote: > Interesting that removing the files (which is

Re: A face-lift for 1.0

Let me know if you need or want any help. On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > Sounds great. > > Enis > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > +1 on the face-lift initiative. > > > > On Dec 2, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > > > > > Heya, > > > > > > In

Re: A face-lift for 1.0

Yeah the js and css are all loaded though a cdn. It should be pretty easy to change the urls to be protocol relative and then things should work. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > I had the same problem. We link to CSS which is http instead of forking and > serving it in t

Re: [VOTE] The 3rd HBase 0.98.10 release candidate (RC2) is available, vote closing 2/4/2015

I'm currently testing this on a cluster. I'll have results before the vote should close. On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Gentle reminder that our abbreviated voting closes today. I plan to +1 > later today, am just waiting for the usual unit test runs to finish. We > will

Re: [VOTE] The 3rd HBase 0.98.10 release candidate (RC2) is available, vote closing 2/4/2015

h h1 and h2) > Simple shell tests > Ran LTT in local mode > Compiled with h1 and h2 > > Enis > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Elliott Clark wrote: > > > I'm currently testing this on a cluster. I'll have results before the > vote > > should

Re: [VOTE] Sixth release candidate for HBase 1.0.0 (RC5) is available. Please vote by Feb 19 2015

+1 Checked signature Checked source and binary tars All unit tests passed on JDK 7 ITBLL worked and passed. On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > +1 > > - Checked sums and signature > - Source and binary tarball layouts look ok > - Spot checked docs > - Built from source > - A

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache HBase 1.0.0 is now available for download

Exciting news. Nice job team. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jerry He wrote: > Congratulations on the milestone! >

Re: Can I get a review of HBASE-12795?

Sorry I missed that initial ping. Everything looks good there. It's a breaking change but it's only on the test binary which I think we have said is fair game for 0.98.X On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Would like to commit to 0.98.11, but can push it if nobody can take a

Re: Rough goal timelines for 1.1 and 2.0

I'm most looking forward to rpc quotas and the buffer improvements that stack has put in. So for me getting a 1.1 in May 1 would be cool. That would allow us to talk about what was just released at HBaseCon, and maybe even have 1.1.0 in production at places. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Sean

Re: Rough goal timelines for 1.1 and 2.0

or two from the vendor marketing > > machines > > > > -- > > > > > a release timed with HBaseCon would be ideal in this regard. My > > > > obligations > > > > > to the event are minimal, so I'm willing to volunteer as RM for > 1.1.

Re: Commits on master, branch-1, and 0.98 but missing from branch-1.0

I thought we were only back porting fixes to 1.0.1 other wise it's not just a patch release. And we would be completely going away from semver. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Hi folks, > > It looks like there's quite a few commits that were missing on the > branch-1.0 lin

Re: TableInputFormatBase deprecated issue

All of the code in mapred was considered deprecated because Hadoop had been saying for a while that org.apache.hadoo.mapreduce (as opposed to org.apache.hadoop.mapred) would be best supported MR framework. So HBase wanted to push users to use that set of classes. However it's become pretty apparen

Re: Private MVN repos in HBase's pom.xml

Yeah we don't use it at all in branch-1 and master. I haven't checked 0.98 lately though it used to need it. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I don't believe we've needed that since we moved away from custom versions > of Surefire. > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Sta

Re: Jira - assignees

Sounds good to me. We can always go back if it becomes an issue. On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > Hi, > > This has been discussed before, but I cannot find the thread. In jira for > HBase, we have it so that only people in the contributors list can assign > the issues. Tha

Re: [VOTE] The 4th HBase 0.98.12 release candidate (RC3) is available, vote closing 4/17/2015

+1 Un-tar'd hadoop-2 and src tars. Checked their contents Ran a local instance everything looked good. Checked headers. On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Adrian Muraru wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > * built internally from git tag: 0.98.12RC3 > * loaded data in dev cluster, read/write OK > * custo

Poke HBASE-13477

Anyone want to take a quick look at HBASE-13477

Re: Poke HBASE-13477

Thank you sir. You're a scholar and a Gentleman On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Done. > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Elliott Clark wrote: > > > Anyone want to take a quick look at HBASE-13477 > > >

Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2) is available. Please vote by April 24 2015

Any thoughts on how HBASE-13471 and HDFS-7005 would affect this RC? On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > Checked signatures > Ran unit test suite > Exercised basic shell commands > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > > > I am pleased to announce that

Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2) is available. Please vote by April 24 2015

n it if we don't sink it which is hopefully in 4-5 weeks. > > Enis > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Elliott Clark wrote: > > > Any thoughts on how HBASE-13471 and HDFS-7005 would affect this RC? > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ted Yu wrote:

Re: The Renumbering (proposed)

I just don't understand sticking with 2.5.1. Hadoop 2.5.1 is something that's basically un-usable in an environment with real load. I can't get it to pass 1/2 a day of IT tests ( which should mean that it fails all RC votes). The choice that we are giving the user: * Upgrade to get bug fixes cri

Re: The Renumbering (proposed)

I'd prefer a 2.6.1 or 2.7.1 over a 2.5.3 if we're asking hadoop to make releases. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > Can we ask Hadoop to make a 2.5.3 release with HDFS-7005? > > > > > What incompatibility is in 2

Re: Clarifying interface evolution freedom in patch releases (was: Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2))

Is 2.7.1 going to have that not for production tag or was that tag just because of the issues found late in the cycle that are now fixed? On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Stack wrot

Re: Spinning up for 1.1 Release

Any thoughts on HBASE-13517 ? It has no extra code changes so it shouldn't be de-stabilizing. On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Cody Marcel wrote: > The port for PHOENIX-1728 > from master is still > in progress. I should have the rest of the b

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 1.0.1.1 patch release candidate (RC0) is available, vote closing 5/20/2015

+1 Checked sums Checked RAT. Passed unit test. Ran LTT on a test clsuter. On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > +1 > > Checked sums and signature > Checked tarball layouts > Built from source > RAT checks pass > Unit tests pass (7u79) > Ran LTT with local mode, no unexpected

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 1.1.0.1 patch release candidate (RC0) is available, vote closing 5/20/2015

+1 Checked sums Checked RAT Passed unit test Ran LTT on a test cluster On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > Verified signatures > Checked basic shell commands against local instance > Built against hadoop 2.6.0 > Ran test suite > > Cheers > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:12 PM,

Re: [DISCUSS] Additional maintenance releases for Hadoop 2.y versions

If people are concerned about regression then just don't install new versions, or install a vendor tested stable version. Giving users choices is a good thing for stability. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > I think the bar for making the maintenance releases should be set >

Re: Please welcome our newest committer, Nick Dimiduk

Congrats! On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jeffrey Zhong wrote: > Congratulations! > > On 9/10/13 3:55 PM, "Ted Yu" wrote: > >>Congratulations, Nick. >> >> >>On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please join me in welcoming Nick as our new addition to the list

Re: Documenting Guidance on compression and codecs

To make things even more interesting I've been testing lz4 recently and it's been doing very well on my ycsb runs. So there's another option to add. On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Do we have a consolidated resource with information and recommendations > about use of the

Re: Please welcome our newest committer, Rajeshbabu Chintaguntla

Welcome to the team. On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Nice one Rajesh! > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:17 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Please join me in welcoming Rajeshbabu (Rajesh) as our new HBase committer. >> R

Re: [VOTE] The 2nd hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

-1 HBASE-9561 hbase-server-tests.jar contains a test mapred-site.xml On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Stack wrote: > hbase-0.96.0 will be our next major release. It is intended to supplant > the 0.94.x series. > > hbase-0.96.0RC1 is our second candidate for release hbase-0.96.0. > > The signed

Re: SVN vs XML vs BINARY vs TEXT...

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Stack wrote: > Want us to set config in our repo so they are treated as text JMS? I can give it a try tomorrow http://stackoverflow.com/questions/458609/how-to-explicity-tell-svn-to-treat-a-file-as-text-not-binary

Re: [VOTE] The 3rd hbase 0.94.12 release candidate is available for download

+1 Downloaded it Checked signature Checked that everything is where it's supposed to be Ran a single node pseudo distributed cluster Ran PE Tried snappy compression On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari wrote: > I just tried to test it on a brand new server and got this: > Its dep

Re: 0.96 version in apache maven repo

Currently the 0.96 branch's version isn't a snapshot. So anything that's published directly from the pristine source will have to be a real release. Each of the RC's are put into a staging repo. Would that help you whenever we can get the next rc out ? On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sergey Sh

Re: HBASE-9690 - Mirrors are missing

I would try an infra jira or going into the infra irc and asking. On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari wrote: > Hi mates, > > Any idea on that? > > JM > > > 2013/10/1 Jean-Marc Spaggiari > > > Hi team, > > > > .md5 files are missing from most of the mirrors. > > > > I have been

Re: HEADSUP: Working on new 0.96.0RC

At this point I think that we should have real clean IT test runs before cutting another release. And we can't really get that until the master always comes back up (The issue stack was working on yesterday) and until merging is stable. I would like to see those two things fixed before 0.96 On

Re: HEADSUP: Working on new 0.96.0RC

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Devaraj Das wrote: > > For the 0.96.0 version, can we not say that "merge" should be used > with caution. I would feel very uncomfortable with that. Telling people to just hope that the servers don't crash while a merge is going on seems like an unwise strategy.

Re: HEADSUP: Working on new 0.96.0RC

To me it feels like HBASE-9724 should go into 0.96. We're not releasing a new rc tonight, it seems really weird to hold up a bug fix to try and hit some unknown, and un-agreed upon, deadline. On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Stack wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] The 6th hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

I'm -0 this being the first 96 release. For the good news: * On a small cluster I've run all of the IT tests with both the calm chaos monkey and the slow deterministic chaos monkey. Everything passed and looked good. 4 tests of 5 hours each pass consistently. * Runs of YCSB Reads were better th

Re: DISCUSSION: Move to GIT?

+1 I've actually been using git to do most of my work lately. On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:16 AM, 黄浩松 wrote: > git is more powerful and flexible. > > 2013/10/26 Ted Yu : > > +1 too. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jesse Yates >wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Do all my work in git anyw

Integration Test Slow Down

So I went and checked on the run times of Cloudera's internal integration test jenkins runs, and I noticed that recently the IntegrationTestBigLinkedList runs started running much slower. With the slow monkey: 5 hr 58 min -> 11 hr With the calm monkey: 4 hr 36 min -> 6 hr 24 min IntegrationTestB

Re: Integration Test Slow Down

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Devaraj Das wrote: > Elliott, do you know how much it takes without chaosmonkey That's what the Calm monkey does. So 4.5 hours to 6.3

Re: Integration Test Slow Do wn

as Liochon wrote: > > > I'm going to have a look at this today, Elliott. > > > > Le 6 déc. 2013 00:31, "Elliott Clark" a écrit : > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Devaraj Das > wrote: > >> > >> > Elliott, do you know how much it takes without chaosmonkey > >> > >> > >> That's what the Calm monkey does. So 4.5 hours to 6.3 > >> > > >

Re: We haven't had a clean hadoopqa build since 10/2/13.

Fixing the site build so that it doesn't take an install first seems to be eluding me. The other option is to make the qa bot do an install. But for that to be safe we need to make sure that the maven repositories aren't shared on any concurrently running hadoop qa runs. Can someone with jenkins

Re: ANN: The third hbase-0.96.1 release candidate is available for download

+1 Downloaded Checked the signature of all the tar.gz's Installed on a cluster (Hadoop 2.2 and Java 7u25) Ran PE Ran YCSB * The performance of this release is much better than 0.96.0. Ran IT tests for ~16 hours * No data loss * IntegrationTestBigLinkedList * IntegrationTestIngest * IntegrationTes

Re: ANNOUNCE: hbase 0.96.1.1rc0 release candidate is available for download.

+1 Check signature Unpacked tar Checked structure. ran rat check. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > +1 > > Checked signatures and file sums > Unpacked tarballs - Contents and directory structure look good > Started up miniclusters out of unpacked directories > > > > > On

Re: Please welcome our newest committer, Liang Xie!

Welcome! On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Bharath Vissapragada < bhara...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Congrats Liang :-) > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM, gopinathan a >wrote: > > > Congrats Liang Xie!!! All the best for your new Role :) > > > > Thanks, > > Gopinathan A > > > > -Original

Re: ANNOUNCE: hbase-0.96.1.1 available for download.

Thanks. Should we now go remove the 0.96.1 release from mirrors ? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > The HBase Team is pleased to announce the immediate release of HBase > 0.96.1.1. > > You should be able to download it from you favorite apache mirrors[1]. It > has also

Re: [PROPOSAL] HBASE-10070 branch

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > I am afraid, it is not coprocessors or current set of plugins only. We need > changes in the > RPC, meta, region server, LB and master. Since we cannot easily get hooks > into all these in > a clean manner, implementing this purely outside w

Re: DISCUSS: We need a mascot, a totem HBASE-4920

+1 Funny On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Nicolas Liochon > wrote: > > > +1 for the Orca. > > Personally, I like this one: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12511412/HBase%20Orca%20Logo.jpg > > > As do I. > > On Tue

Re: Please welcome our newest committer, Mr. Honghua Feng

Welcome aboard. Congratulations On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Gary Helmling wrote: > Congrats! > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jimmy Xiang wrote: > > > Congrats! > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jonathan Hsieh > wrote: > > > > > Good stuff! > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar

Re: Co-locate meta and master, and beyond

+1 Awesome work. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Jimmy Xiang wrote: > Here is a heads up on some work I've been doing of late. > > > My goal is to make region assignment simpler, faster, more reliable > > and maintainable making it so we are able to handle many more regions > > more efficientl

Re: [VOTE] The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate (RC3) is available for download

+1 Checked the hash Checked the tar layout. Played with a single node. Everything seemed good after ITBLL On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Stack wrote: > +1 > > The hash is good. Doc. and layout looks good. UI seems fine. > > Ran on small cluster w/ default hadoop 2.2 in hbase against a tip

Re: ANNOUNCE: The third hbase-0.96.2 release candidate (WAS --> Re: ANNOUNCE: The second hbase-0.96.2 release candiate (WAS --> Fwd: ANNOUNCE: The first hbase-0.96.2 release candidate is available for

+1 looks good. Checked sig, and played on a small cluster. Passed IT tests on hadoop 2 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Anoop John wrote: > I will check the RC and vote soon Stack. b4 this weekend. :) > > Anoop > > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Stack wrote: > > Any votes out there for this one?

Re: VOTE: Move to GIT

+1 On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:11 AM, yao wrote: > +1 (can anyone +2 this ?) > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jimmy Xiang wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Stack wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Best practice when amending commits cherry picked from master to branch

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Stack wrote: > If we get a few more +1s I'll add to dev section of refguide. > +1

Re: Metrics units?

most of the metrics should have a description string in JMX that should describe them. If they are missing units in there and it's not clear, just let me know and I can try and clean that up. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Heya, > > Do we have documentation someplace d

Re: [DISCUSSION] applying patches

I'd rather have people change their git settings to include the committer rather than add additional process. Though that's just personal preference. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I think the author or signoff line should indicate the committer. Not sure > a precommit

Re: [VOTE] Merge branch hbase-11339 HBase MOB to trunk

+1 On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Matteo Bertozzi wrote: > +1 > > Matteo > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > We do have three +1s on this thread which is already sufficient for a > > branch merge unless there is a veto. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:53

Re: Resuming releases

Thanks to everyone who pushed this through. It will feel great to get more releases coming down the pipe. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Ted Malaska wrote: > Thanks Sean > On Aug 7, 2015 6:38 PM, "Andrew Purtell" wrote: > > > Thanks to Sean's work on generating NOTICE and LICENCE files, some >

Re: Request for help: shaded client jars (HBASE-13889)

I'll take a look tomorrow if no one else has. Sorry about the errors. On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Heya, > > One of our "advertised features" on 1.1 is a shaded packaging of client > jars. Initial patches went through but it seems the feature is not standing > up to mo

Re: Execute script file from with in HBase shell

Additionally the shell takes in input on what to run from stdin. So you can cat 'somefile' | hbase shell > output On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > The HBase shell is currently just an IRB[1] session in JRuby[2]. By default > it runs in Ruby 1.8 mode, and you can use the 'loa

Re: [DISCUSS] retiring current DLR code

I would say pull it completely. I can't imagine what it would take for me to feel comfortable with the code that's currently there. If there's interest we could start a branch and work on a replacement with what's known now. On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu wrote: > +1 on pulling DLR fro

Re: Please welcome new HBase committer Stephen Yuan Jiang

Welcome! On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Vladimir Rodionov wrote: > Congratulations, Stephen! > > -Vlad > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Srikanth Srungarapu < > srikanth...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Kudos, Stephen! > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:19 PM Jesse Yates > > wrote: > > > > >

Re: Proposal: Matteo for 2.0.0 RM

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Stack wrote: > Folks good with that? +1 for Matteo for 2.0/Master RM

Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.2 (RC2) is available. Please vote by Aug 30 2015

+1 * Un-tared and checked layout * Ran after building from src * Checked signatures. On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > +1 > > * checked sums and signatures > * verified src tarball corresponds to 1.0.2RC2 tag > * verified license and notice files > * RAT passes > > known iss

Re: Current status of 1.2.0RC0

HBASE-14317 should be a blocker for 1.2. It might even warrant a new point release of all the 1.X.X branches. On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Hi Folks! > > I'm still alive and looking to make 1.2.0 release candidates. Now that > we're finally out from under the weight of li

Re: Current status of 1.2.0RC0

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > HBASE-14317 That's fixed now. Should we start spinning RC's so that we can get people(other than the mighty stack) looking at tests ?

Re: Performance degradation between CDH5.3.1(HBase0.98.6) and CDH5.4.5(HBase1.0.0)

Commented up on the jira. But I think there's a pretty easy solution that we can do that should be possible in the near future. We will continue to have issues in situations that are highly contended on just a small number of rows. But there's not a whole lot that I can see to make that situation m

Re: [DISCUSS] About the details of JDK-8 support

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa wrote: > Do you have any concern about this? I’ve not > tested with HBase yet. > We've been running JDK 8u60 in production with Hadoop 2.6.X and HBase for quite a while. Everything has been very stable for us. We're running and compiling with jdk8.

Re: Could all tests run MR without MiniMapReduceCluster?

Do we have any tests that test the locality feature for map task -> machine? That's the only thing I can think of that would 100% require an mr mincluster. I'd be +1 on removing most of the uses of mr minicluster. On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:01 PM, 陈恒 wrote: > When i dig in HBASE-14659, i foun

Re: Could all tests run MR without MiniMapReduceCluster?

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Heng Chen wrote: > IMO we can remove them firstly, and see what QA says. > +1

Re: HBase 1.2.0 RC status

IT tests on a real cluster are completely green. So that's promising. Things still needed: * I think there might still be a replication issue with multi-wal. It looks like with mutli-wal enabled replication is broken and causes all regionservers to abort. * Re-enbable balancer On Fri, Oct 23, 20

Re: Git Push Summary

Seems like another errant push. Want me to delete ? On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:07 PM, wrote: > Repository: hbase > Updated Branches: > refs/heads/maser [deleted] ac746e090 >

Re: MOB in branch-1? (Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Merge branch hbase-11339 HBase MOB to trunk)

I feel the same lets keep branch-1 stable, and work towards a faster 2.0.0. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Stack wrote: > IMO, MOB is still not settled in Master. It has a bunch of flakey tests > that are getting fixed by Jingcheng or I've disabled them till someone has > time to look at them.

Re: Git Push Summary

Thanks Andrew. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > This was me deleting someone else's errant push. :-) > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Elliott Clark wrote: > > > Seems like another errant push. Want me to delete ? > > > > On T

Re: Opinions wanted: new site skin

Looks great with the white. +1 On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Misty Stanley-Jones < mstanleyjo...@cloudera.com> wrote: > The grey background was inadvertent and has now been changed to white, if > you refresh. > > Please click around and try the menus etc, as well. > > By the way, I know that t

Re: Potential Gerrit support in review/commit flow

I'm super in favor of a gerrit install. Branches is the only thing that really comes to my mind, as being a pain. So we'll need to have something like: https://gist.github.com/vishvananda/2206428 On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Zhe Zhang wrote: > > > > One question: is it possible to enfore fa

Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations

We've been running a version of 2.6.X for a while and it's been quite stable for us. I would be +1 for supporting 2.6.1+ On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > I've verified compilation at least of 1.1.x on 2.6 releases. I'm fine with > upgrading "X" to "NT" for this combination.

Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Elliot what (approximate) HBase version has that been with? 1.0? > 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT

Re: [VOTE] First release candidate for HBase 1.1.3 (RC0) is available

+1 Everything looks to be in the correct location. Spun up a regionserver inserted some things. On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > The issue is not in the product but in the report generation. It seems the > reporting tool does not work correctly on my new hardware. I ran it

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 0.98.16 release candidate (RC0) is available

branch-1 has completely re-written row locks from 0.98 and branch-1.1. See: https://github.com/apache/hbase/commit/bae2a970817d3693946c5b1d4e2382e56b1e94b8 https://github.com/apache/hbase/commit/2c83d8a263ee7c6751448bcc72868da86757f7f2 I'm not sure how much we're going to get by looking at row

Re: HBase 1.2.0 RC status

You're probably going to need HBASE-14745 otherwise -Prelease is broken. Other than that I think that everything is good to go. On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Hi folks! > > We're at 0 blockers for 1.2.0 and post-commit builds are relatively stable. > > I plan to do jira li

HBASE-14850 C++ Client Branch

C++ client is going to be a reasonable undertaking. I was thinking that a branch for it would be best so that any new branches off of master wouldn't be held back by half done implementations. Thoughts ?

Re: HBASE-14850 C++ Client Branch

e pushed to all branches though. It maybe > hard > > to keep a clean history without it. > > > > Enis > > > >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Elliott Clark > wrote: > >> > >> C++ client is going to be a reasonable undertaking. I was thinking

Site skin

hange ? -- Elliott Clark

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-1.2 » latest1.8,Hadoop #432

I'm seeing this on non-apache build machines too. Filed HBASE-14962 On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Stack wrote: > This test usually passes. This is first fail in about 20 runs: > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-1.2/jdk=latest1.8,label=Hadoop/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/org.apache.hado

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-1.2 » latest1.8,Hadoop #432

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Stack wrote: > I've seen it fail in a few places too... Yeah, lets fix the flakey. > It's really weird that it's been flakey for so long but we were getting lucky.

HBASE-14978

Anyone have any thoughts on HBASE-14978 ? On a read heavy workload we're seeing some serious GC issues. So I put in the limit for the number of bytes of cells that could be returned. However on gets that take a small amount of data from a lot of different block this might not be enough. If every k

Re: Site skin

tack wrote: > >> > >>> Me too What you reckon Misty? > >>> St.Ack > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > >>> jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> > It'

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >