Hi Yu,

I commented on the issue. For me both Hadoop 2.8.3 and Hadoop 2.4.1 seem to 
work. Could you have a look at my comment?

I will also cancel this RC because of various issues.

Best,
Aljoscha

> On 21. Mar 2019, at 12:23, Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks @jincheng
> 
> @Aljoscha I've just opened FLINK-11990 
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11990> for the HDFS 
> BucketingSink issue with hadoop 2.8. IMHO it might be a blocker for 1.8.0 and 
> need your confirmation. Thanks.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yu
> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 15:57, jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:sunjincheng...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the quick fix, Yu. the PR of FLINK-11972 
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11972> has been merged.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jincheng
> 
> Yu Li <car...@gmail.com <mailto:car...@gmail.com>> 于2019年3月21日周四 上午7:23写道:
> -1, observed stably failure on streaming bucketing end-to-end test case in 
> two different environments (Linux/MacOS) when running with both shaded 
> hadoop-2.8.3 jar file 
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1213/org/apache/flink/flink-shaded-hadoop2-uber/2.8.3-1.8.0/flink-shaded-hadoop2-uber-2.8.3-1.8.0.jar>
>  and hadoop-2.8.5 dist 
> <http://archive.apache.org/dist/hadoop/core/hadoop-2.8.5/>, while both env 
> could pass with hadoop 2.6.5. More details please refer to this comment 
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11972?focusedCommentId=16797614&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16797614>
>  in FLINK-11972.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yu
> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 04:25, jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:sunjincheng...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the quick fix Aljoscha! The FLINK-11971 
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11971> has been merged.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jincheng
> 
> Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com <mailto:pi...@ververica.com>> 
> 于2019年3月21日周四 上午12:29写道:
> -1 from my side due to performance regression found in the master branch 
> since Jan 29th. 
> 
> In 10% JVM forks it was causing huge performance drop in some of the 
> benchmarks (up to 30-50% reduced throughput), which could mean that one out 
> of 10 task managers could be affected by it. Today we have merged a fix for 
> it [1]. First benchmark run was promising [2], but we have to wait until 
> tomorrow to make sure that the problem was definitely resolved. If that’s the 
> case, I would recommend including it in 1.8.0, because we really do not know 
> how big of performance regression this issue can be in the real world 
> scenarios.
> 
> Regarding the second regression from mid February. We have found the 
> responsible commit and this one is probably just a false positive. Because of 
> the nature some of the benchmarks, they are running with low number of 
> records (300k). The apparent performance regression was caused by higher 
> initialisation time. When I temporarily increased the number of records to 
> 2M, the regression was gone. Together with Till and Stefan Richter we 
> discussed the potential impact of this longer initialisation time (in the 
> case of said benchmarks initialisation time increased from 70ms to 120ms) and 
> we think that it’s not a critical issue, that doesn’t have to block the 
> release. Nevertheless there might some follow up work for this.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/8020 
> <https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/8020>
> [2] http://codespeed.dak8s.net:8000/timeline/?ben=tumblingWindow&env=2 
> <http://codespeed.dak8s.net:8000/timeline/?ben=tumblingWindow&env=2>
> 
> Piotr Nowojski
> 
>> On 20 Mar 2019, at 10:09, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org 
>> <mailto:aljos...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Jincheng! It would be very good to fix those but as you said, I would 
>> say they are not blockers.
>> 
>>> On 20. Mar 2019, at 09:47, Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>> 
>>> Checked items:
>>> - checked checksums and GPG files
>>> - verified that the source archives do not contains any binaries
>>> - checked that all POM files point to the same version
>>> - build from source successfully 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Kurt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:12 PM jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:sunjincheng...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hi Aljoscha&All,
>>> 
>>> When I did the `end-to-end` test for RC3 under Mac OS, I found the 
>>> following two problems:
>>> 
>>> 1. The verification returned for different `minikube status` is is not 
>>> enough for the robustness. The strings returned by different versions of 
>>> different platforms are different. the following misjudgment is caused:
>>> When the `Command: start_kubernetes_if_not_ruunning failed` error occurs, 
>>> the minikube has actually started successfully. The core reason is that 
>>> there is a bug in the `test_kubernetes_embedded_job.sh` script. See 
>>> FLINK-11971 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11971> for details.
>>> 
>>> 2. Since the difference between 1.8.0 and 1.7.x is that 1.8.x does not put 
>>> the `hadoop-shaded` JAR integrated into the dist.  It will cause an error 
>>> when the end-to-end test cannot be found with `Hadoop` Related classes,  
>>> such as: `java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: 
>>> Lorg/apache/hadoop/fs/FileSystem`. So we need to improve the end-to-end 
>>> test script, or explicitly stated in the README, i.e. end-to-end test need 
>>> to add `flink-shaded-hadoop2-uber-XXXX.jar` to the classpath. See 
>>> FLINK-11972 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11972> for details.
>>> 
>>> I think this is not a blocker for release-1.8.0, but I think it would be 
>>> better to include those commits in release-1.8 If we still have performance 
>>> related bugs should be fixed.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Jincheng
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org <mailto:aljos...@apache.org>> 
>>> 于2019年3月19日周二 下午7:58写道:
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> The release process for Flink 1.8.0 is currently ongoing. Please have a 
>>> look at the thread, in case you’re interested in checking your applications 
>>> against this next release of Apache Flink and participate in the process.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Aljoscha
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org <mailto:aljos...@apache.org>>
>>>> Subject: [VOTE] Release 1.8.0, release candidate #3
>>>> Date: 19. March 2019 at 12:52:50 CET
>>>> To: d...@flink.apache.org <mailto:d...@flink.apache.org>
>>>> Reply-To: d...@flink.apache.org <mailto:d...@flink.apache.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate 3 for Flink 1.8.0, as 
>>>> follows:
>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>> * the official Apache source release and binary convenience releases to be 
>>>> deployed to dist.apache.org <http://dist.apache.org/> 
>>>> <http://dist.apache.org/ <http://dist.apache.org/>> [2], which are signed 
>>>> with the key with fingerprint F2A67A8047499BBB3908D17AA8F4FD97121D7293 [3],
>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>> * source code tag "release-1.8.0-rc3" [5],
>>>> * website pull request listing the new release [6]
>>>> * website pull request adding announcement blog post [7].
>>>> 
>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority 
>>>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Aljoscha
>>>> 
>>>> [1] 
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12344274
>>>>  
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12344274>
>>>>  
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12344274
>>>>  
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12344274>>
>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.8.0-rc3/ 
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.8.0-rc3/> 
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.8.0-rc3/ 
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.8.0-rc3/>>
>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS 
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS> 
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS 
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS>>
>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1214 
>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1214> 
>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1214 
>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1214>> 
>>>> [5] 
>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink.git;a=tag;h=b505c0822edd2aed7fa22ed75eca40dca1a9de42
>>>>  
>>>> <https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink.git;a=tag;h=b505c0822edd2aed7fa22ed75eca40dca1a9de42>
>>>>  
>>>> <https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink.git;a=tag;h=b505c0822edd2aed7fa22ed75eca40dca1a9de42
>>>>  
>>>> <https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink.git;a=tag;h=b505c0822edd2aed7fa22ed75eca40dca1a9de42>>
>>>>  
>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/180 
>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/180> 
>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/180 
>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/180>>
>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/179 
>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/179> 
>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/179 
>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/179>>
>>>> 
>>>> P.S. The difference to the previous RCs 1 and 2 is very small, you can 
>>>> fetch the tags and do a "git log release-1.8.0-rc1..release-1.8.0-rc3” to 
>>>> see the difference in commits. Its fixes for the issues that led to the 
>>>> cancellation of the previous RCs plus smaller fixes. Most 
>>>> verification/testing that was carried out should apply as is to this RC. 
>>>> Any functional verification that you did on previous RCs should therefore 
>>>> easily carry over to this one.
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to