Stack | 31 Aug 05:35 2013
Picon

[VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to supplant
the 0.94.x series.

hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.

The signed tarballs are available here:

 http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/

The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:

 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/

The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:

 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-127/

Note that hbase-0.96.0 comes in two flavors; a build that includes and runs
on hadoop-1.x and another for hadoop-2.x.  You must chose the hbase that
suits your hadoop context.

Almost 2k issues [1] are attributed to this version (counting fixes done
against this and the 0.95.x developer series of releases).  Almost 100
fixes have been committed since 0.95.2.  I will follow up w/ a synopsis of
the major changes.

Please take it for a spin.  We are interested in any issues found but in
particular, we would appreciate feedback on how well the migration of a
0.94.x dataset to run under 0.96.0 works [2].

(Continue reading)

Jean-Marc Spaggiari | 31 Aug 13:15 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Hi St.Ack,

Thanks for this release!

Is there a way to run the test suite on the binary packages? Or we can only
run the tests on the source distribution?

Thanks,

JM

2013/8/30 Stack <stack@...>

> hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to supplant
> the 0.94.x series.
>
> hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
>
> The signed tarballs are available here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
>
> The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:
>
>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/
>
> The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:
>
>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-127/
>
(Continue reading)

Devaraj Das | 31 Aug 20:23 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Thanks for making the RC, Stack. I bumped into one thing which I thought I
should bring up in the context of singularity - the ServerName message in
hbase.proto should have the start_code as a signed int. We allow for -1 (
ServerName.NON_STARTCODE) as a start_code. Hence.. Yes it can be worked
around, and, maybe there won't any wire-compat issues if we make the change
later (not sure about it) but I think we should fix it now. What do you
think?

For illustration, here is the proposed fix.

diff --git a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
index 08061e5..2f9a8d1 100644
--- a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
+++ b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
 <at>  <at>  -120,7 +120,7  <at>  <at>  enum CompareType {
 message ServerName {
   required string host_name = 1;
   optional uint32 port = 2;
-  optional uint64 start_code = 3;
+  optional int64 start_code = 3;
 }

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@...> wrote:

> Hi St.Ack,
>
> Thanks for this release!
>
(Continue reading)

Enis Söztutar | 1 Sep 00:16 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

I have run into a similar case where we were encoding a negative integer as
a uint64. It turns out that it just works, since PB encoding and decoding
back will still cast to java longs, since java does not have unsigned's, it
will turn to -1 again. However, it anybody reads that value from c++ PB
library for example, they will read the equivalent of (unsigned long) -1.

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:

> Thanks for making the RC, Stack. I bumped into one thing which I thought I
> should bring up in the context of singularity - the ServerName message in
> hbase.proto should have the start_code as a signed int. We allow for -1 (
> ServerName.NON_STARTCODE) as a start_code. Hence.. Yes it can be worked
> around, and, maybe there won't any wire-compat issues if we make the change
> later (not sure about it) but I think we should fix it now. What do you
> think?
>
> For illustration, here is the proposed fix.
>
> diff --git a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> index 08061e5..2f9a8d1 100644
> --- a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> +++ b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
>  <at>  <at>  -120,7 +120,7  <at>  <at>  enum CompareType {
>  message ServerName {
>    required string host_name = 1;
>    optional uint32 port = 2;
> -  optional uint64 start_code = 3;
> +  optional int64 start_code = 3;
>  }
(Continue reading)

Stack | 1 Sep 00:17 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:

> Thanks for making the RC, Stack. I bumped into one thing which I thought I
> should bring up in the context of singularity - the ServerName message in
> hbase.proto should have the start_code as a signed int. We allow for -1 (
> ServerName.NON_STARTCODE) as a start_code. Hence.. Yes it can be worked
> around, and, maybe there won't any wire-compat issues if we make the change
> later (not sure about it) but I think we should fix it now. What do you
> think?
>
> For illustration, here is the proposed fix.
>
> diff --git a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> index 08061e5..2f9a8d1 100644
> --- a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> +++ b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
>  <at>  <at>  -120,7 +120,7  <at>  <at>  enum CompareType {
>  message ServerName {
>    required string host_name = 1;
>    optional uint32 port = 2;
> -  optional uint64 start_code = 3;
> +  optional int64 start_code = 3;
>  }
>
>
I'd say it not a deal breaker; more a good to fix in the next RC if there
is one (my guess is that there will likely be one -- smile).  I
made HBASE-9408 as a placeholder for now.

(Continue reading)

Stack | 1 Sep 00:13 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@...> wrote:

> Hi St.Ack,
>
> Thanks for this release!
>
> Is there a way to run the test suite on the binary packages? Or we can only
> run the tests on the source distribution?
>

The bin packages don't have poms so mvn is all confused if you ask it to
run the tests.

You might be able to fake out junit to run them since the bin package
includes the tests jar but it looks like we would need to bundle the
hamcrest jar (IIRC, we exclude it explicitly because could not see why we'd
want it at runtime -- smile):

durruti:hbase-0.96.0-hadoop2 stack$ ./bin/hbase  org.junit.runner.JUnitCore
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.TestKeyValue
JUnit version 4.11
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
org/hamcrest/SelfDescribing
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:791)
at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:142)
...

You'd have name each test explicitly also.
(Continue reading)

Jean-Marc Spaggiari | 2 Sep 18:41 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Got it.

I can't run the integration tests for now because I'm lacking some
servers :( Need to complete some HBase on RAID tests before I can get
those new servers

First thing is, start-hbase.cmd has the execute flag set. I don't
think it's required. And it will help with tabulation feature if we
can un-set it.

For 0.96.0RC0 here are my results:
First, I get 2 .out files. each time I start the server, instead of
usually one... With the same timestamp.

-rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out
-rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out.1

In the UI, we say "The .META. table holds references to all User Table
regions" but the table name is "hbase:meta" and not ".META."

On the logs, I found this exception that I did not had before:
2013-08-31 18:45:05,490 WARN
[NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181] server.NIOServerCnxn:
caught end of stream exception
EndOfStreamException: Unable to read additional data from client
sessionid 0x140d68bb9d50004, likely client has closed socket
    at org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn.doIO(NIOServerCnxn.java:220)
    at org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxnFactory.run(NIOServerCnxnFactory.java:208)
(Continue reading)

Stack | 2 Sep 19:00 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@...
> wrote:

> Got it.
>
> I can't run the integration tests for now because I'm lacking some
> servers :( Need to complete some HBase on RAID tests before I can get
> those new servers
>
> First thing is, start-hbase.cmd has the execute flag set. I don't
> think it's required. And it will help with tabulation feature if we
> can un-set it.
>
> For 0.96.0RC0 here are my results:
> First, I get 2 .out files. each time I start the server, instead of
> usually one... With the same timestamp.
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
> hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
> hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out.1
>
>
> In the UI, we say "The .META. table holds references to all User Table
> regions" but the table name is "hbase:meta" and not ".META."
>
> On the logs, I found this exception that I did not had before:
> 2013-08-31 18:45:05,490 WARN
> [NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181] server.NIOServerCnxn:
> caught end of stream exception
(Continue reading)

Jean-Marc Spaggiari | 2 Sep 19:20 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Hi St.Ack,

I will open the relate JIRAs in few minutes.

Regarding performances, RandomSeekScanTest is way slower, and only
RandomScanWithRange100Test was faster. Others were similar. For
RandomScanWithRange100Test I suspect that I don't have the right
number for 0.94 so 0.94.11 tests are running right now on the same
server with the same configuration. I will start to have numbers by
end of day, else, tomorrow morning, but will most probably take about
24h to get all of them.

JM

2013/9/2 Stack <stack@...>:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@...
>> wrote:
>
>> Got it.
>>
>> I can't run the integration tests for now because I'm lacking some
>> servers :( Need to complete some HBase on RAID tests before I can get
>> those new servers
>>
>> First thing is, start-hbase.cmd has the execute flag set. I don't
>> think it's required. And it will help with tabulation feature if we
>> can un-set it.
>>
>> For 0.96.0RC0 here are my results:
>> First, I get 2 .out files. each time I start the server, instead of
(Continue reading)

Jean-Marc Spaggiari | 2 Sep 19:51 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

I have created:
 HBASE-9412
 HBASE-9413
 HBASE-9414

I have not been able yet to reproduce the ZK error. I'm trying.

Last, I tried, with no success, to set loglevel to WARN to remove all
DEBUG and INFO logs. Setting it to WARN remove the DEBUG lines, but I
keep getting the INFO. Seems that something is setting the log level
somewhere else, or it's not read.

Here is my log4j.properties file. I removed all the customed log level
to setup WARN for org.apache. And it's still showing INFO...

JM

# Define some default values that can be overridden by system properties
hbase.root.logger=WARN,console
hbase.security.logger=WARN,console
hbase.log.dir=.
hbase.log.file=hbase.log

# Define the root logger to the system property "hbase.root.logger".
log4j.rootLogger=${hbase.root.logger}

# Logging Threshold
log4j.threshold=ALL

#
(Continue reading)

Stack | 3 Sep 15:06 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@...> wrote:

> I have created:
>  HBASE-9412
>  HBASE-9413
>  HBASE-9414
>
> I have not been able yet to reproduce the ZK error. I'm trying.
>
>
Is it when you have a shell connection and then kill it?

> Last, I tried, with no success, to set loglevel to WARN to remove all
> DEBUG and INFO logs. Setting it to WARN remove the DEBUG lines, but I
> keep getting the INFO. Seems that something is setting the log level
> somewhere else, or it's not read.
>
> Here is my log4j.properties file. I removed all the customed log level
> to setup WARN for org.apache. And it's still showing INFO...
>
>

You did it by editing log4j and restarting or in the UI?  I think the UI
log level setting is broke.... (new issue!)

Thanks for trying it out JMS,

So everything is slower in 0.96?
St.Ack
(Continue reading)

Jean-Marc Spaggiari | 3 Sep 15:57 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

There was a typo in my log4j.properties :(

So it's working fine.

The only INFO logs I still see are those one:
2013-09-03 09:53:07,313 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: Logging to
org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerAdapter(org.mortbay.log) via
org.mortbay.log.Slf4jLog
2013-09-03 09:53:07,350 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: jetty-6.1.26
But there is only very few of them.

Performances wise, here are the numbers (the higher, the better. Rows per
seconds, expect for scans where it's rows/min). As you will see, 0.96 is
slower only for RandomSeekScanTest (way slower) and RandomScanWithRange10
but is faster for everything else. I ran the tests with the default
settings. So I think we should look at RandomSeekScanTest but expect this
one, everything else is pretty good.

Also, I have been able to reproduce this exception:
2013-09-03 09:55:36,718 WARN  [NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181]
server.NIOServerCnxn: caught end of stream exception
EndOfStreamException: Unable to read additional data from client sessionid
0x140e4191edb0009, likely client has closed socket
    at
org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn.doIO(NIOServerCnxn.java:220)
    at
org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxnFactory.run(NIOServerCnxnFactory.java:208)
    at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)

Just had to run PE and kill it in the middle.
(Continue reading)

Elliott Clark | 3 Sep 21:56 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Can someone take a look at running Test Big Linked for > 5 iterations
with slowDeterministic chaos monkey on a distributed cluster.  I'm
pretty concerned about HBASE-9338

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari
<jean-marc@...> wrote:
> There was a typo in my log4j.properties :(
>
> So it's working fine.
>
> The only INFO logs I still see are those one:
> 2013-09-03 09:53:07,313 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: Logging to
> org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerAdapter(org.mortbay.log) via
> org.mortbay.log.Slf4jLog
> 2013-09-03 09:53:07,350 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: jetty-6.1.26
> But there is only very few of them.
>
> Performances wise, here are the numbers (the higher, the better. Rows per
> seconds, expect for scans where it's rows/min). As you will see, 0.96 is
> slower only for RandomSeekScanTest (way slower) and RandomScanWithRange10
> but is faster for everything else. I ran the tests with the default
> settings. So I think we should look at RandomSeekScanTest but expect this
> one, everything else is pretty good.
>
> Also, I have been able to reproduce this exception:
> 2013-09-03 09:55:36,718 WARN  [NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181]
> server.NIOServerCnxn: caught end of stream exception
> EndOfStreamException: Unable to read additional data from client sessionid
> 0x140e4191edb0009, likely client has closed socket
>     at
(Continue reading)

Devaraj Das | 3 Sep 22:19 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Yeah, will take a look at this.

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@...> wrote:

> Can someone take a look at running Test Big Linked for > 5 iterations
> with slowDeterministic chaos monkey on a distributed cluster.  I'm
> pretty concerned about HBASE-9338
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari
> <jean-marc@...> wrote:
> > There was a typo in my log4j.properties :(
> >
> > So it's working fine.
> >
> > The only INFO logs I still see are those one:
> > 2013-09-03 09:53:07,313 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: Logging to
> > org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerAdapter(org.mortbay.log) via
> > org.mortbay.log.Slf4jLog
> > 2013-09-03 09:53:07,350 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: jetty-6.1.26
> > But there is only very few of them.
> >
> > Performances wise, here are the numbers (the higher, the better. Rows per
> > seconds, expect for scans where it's rows/min). As you will see, 0.96 is
> > slower only for RandomSeekScanTest (way slower) and RandomScanWithRange10
> > but is faster for everything else. I ran the tests with the default
> > settings. So I think we should look at RandomSeekScanTest but expect this
> > one, everything else is pretty good.
> >
> > Also, I have been able to reproduce this exception:
> > 2013-09-03 09:55:36,718 WARN  [NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181
(Continue reading)

Devaraj Das | 4 Sep 03:17 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Elliott, what are the heap sizes of the M/R tasks in your setup. I was
running the job like this (without chaosmonkey to start with):

hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList Loop 5 12
2500000 IntegrationTestBigLinkedList 10

Even the above test failed with one reduce task failing with OOM, in the
verify step. The heap size was set to 3G.

2013-09-04 01:11:56,054 FATAL [main]
org.apache.hadoop.mapred.YarnChild: Error running child :
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
	at java.util.Arrays.copyOf(Arrays.java:2882)
	at java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.expandCapacity(AbstractStringBuilder.java:100)
	at java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.append(AbstractStringBuilder.java:390)
	at java.lang.StringBuilder.append(StringBuilder.java:119)
	at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify$VerifyReducer.reduce(IntegrationTestBigLinkedList.java:576)
	at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify$VerifyReducer.reduce(IntegrationTestBigLinkedList.java:547)
	at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Reducer.run(Reducer.java:171)
	at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.ReduceTask.runNewReducer(ReduceTask.java:645)
	at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.ReduceTask.run(ReduceTask.java:405)
	at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.YarnChild$2.run(YarnChild.java:162)
	at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
	at javax.security.auth.Subject.doAs(Subject.java:396)
	at org.apache.hadoop.security.UserGroupInformation.doAs(UserGroupInformation.java:1477)
	at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.YarnChild.main(YarnChild.java:157)

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@...> wrote:

> Can someone take a look at running Test Big Linked for > 5 iterations
(Continue reading)

Devaraj Das | 4 Sep 03:30 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Well from the test code it seems like the problem is due to the fact that
the reducer got unexpected data and it was trying to construct the log
message for the user. So the job had already failed in reality.

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:

> Elliott, what are the heap sizes of the M/R tasks in your setup. I was
> running the job like this (without chaosmonkey to start with):
>
> hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList Loop 5 12
> 2500000 IntegrationTestBigLinkedList 10
>
> Even the above test failed with one reduce task failing with OOM, in the
> verify step. The heap size was set to 3G.
>
> 2013-09-04 01:11:56,054 FATAL [main] org.apache.hadoop.mapred.YarnChild: Error running child :
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> 	at java.util.Arrays.copyOf(Arrays.java:2882)
> 	at java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.expandCapacity(AbstractStringBuilder.java:100)
> 	at java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.append(AbstractStringBuilder.java:390)
> 	at java.lang.StringBuilder.append(StringBuilder.java:119)
> 	at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify$VerifyReducer.reduce(IntegrationTestBigLinkedList.java:576)
> 	at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify$VerifyReducer.reduce(IntegrationTestBigLinkedList.java:547)
> 	at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Reducer.run(Reducer.java:171)
> 	at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.ReduceTask.runNewReducer(ReduceTask.java:645)
> 	at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.ReduceTask.run(ReduceTask.java:405)
> 	at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.YarnChild$2.run(YarnChild.java:162)
> 	at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
> 	at javax.security.auth.Subject.doAs(Subject.java:396)
> 	at org.apache.hadoop.security.UserGroupInformation.doAs(UserGroupInformation.java:1477)
(Continue reading)

Elliott Clark | 4 Sep 05:31 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Yeah I got that for a while as well.  Though once online schema change
was disabled I can complete the reduce step with 2.5 G of heap (still
failing :-/).

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:
> Well from the test code it seems like the problem is due to the fact that
> the reducer got unexpected data and it was trying to construct the log
> message for the user. So the job had already failed in reality.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:
>
>> Elliott, what are the heap sizes of the M/R tasks in your setup. I was
>> running the job like this (without chaosmonkey to start with):
>>
>> hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList Loop 5 12
>> 2500000 IntegrationTestBigLinkedList 10
>>
>> Even the above test failed with one reduce task failing with OOM, in the
>> verify step. The heap size was set to 3G.
>>
>> 2013-09-04 01:11:56,054 FATAL [main] org.apache.hadoop.mapred.YarnChild: Error running child :
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>>       at java.util.Arrays.copyOf(Arrays.java:2882)
>>       at java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.expandCapacity(AbstractStringBuilder.java:100)
>>       at java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.append(AbstractStringBuilder.java:390)
>>       at java.lang.StringBuilder.append(StringBuilder.java:119)
>>       at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify$VerifyReducer.reduce(IntegrationTestBigLinkedList.java:576)
>>       at org.apache.hadoop.hbase.test.IntegrationTestBigLinkedList$Verify$VerifyReducer.reduce(IntegrationTestBigLinkedList.java:547)
>>       at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Reducer.run(Reducer.java:171)
(Continue reading)

Stack | 4 Sep 02:09 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@...
> wrote:

> There was a typo in my log4j.properties :(
>
> So it's working fine.
>
> The only INFO logs I still see are those one:
> 2013-09-03 09:53:07,313 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: Logging to
> org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerAdapter(org.mortbay.log) via
> org.mortbay.log.Slf4jLog
> 2013-09-03 09:53:07,350 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: jetty-6.1.26
> But there is only very few of them.
>
>
Pardon me JMS, but is the point that INFO log level doesn't show you enough
of what is going on?  If you have set hbase to INFO-level logging, what you
get is not enough to tell what is happening?

> Performances wise, here are the numbers (the higher, the better. Rows per
> seconds, expect for scans where it's rows/min). As you will see, 0.96 is
> slower only for RandomSeekScanTest (way slower) and RandomScanWithRange10
> but is faster for everything else. I ran the tests with the default
> settings. So I think we should look at RandomSeekScanTest but expect this
> one, everything else is pretty good.
>

....

>
(Continue reading)

Jean-Marc Spaggiari | 4 Sep 04:35 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Sorry for not being clear.

I have setup the logs level to WARN in the property file, and I still see
an INFO message. I would have expected it to not beeing displayed.

Thanks for looking at the performance impact.

JM

2013/9/3 Stack <stack@...>

> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@...
> > wrote:
>
> > There was a typo in my log4j.properties :(
> >
> > So it's working fine.
> >
> > The only INFO logs I still see are those one:
> > 2013-09-03 09:53:07,313 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: Logging to
> > org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerAdapter(org.mortbay.log) via
> > org.mortbay.log.Slf4jLog
> > 2013-09-03 09:53:07,350 INFO  [M:0;t430s:45176] mortbay.log: jetty-6.1.26
> > But there is only very few of them.
> >
> >
> Pardon me JMS, but is the point that INFO log level doesn't show you enough
> of what is going on?  If you have set hbase to INFO-level logging, what you
> get is not enough to tell what is happening?
(Continue reading)

Stack | 5 Sep 02:34 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to supplant
> the 0.94.x series.
>
> hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
>
> The signed tarballs are available here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
>
> The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:
>
>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/
>
> The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:
>
>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-127/
>
> Note that hbase-0.96.0 comes in two flavors; a build that includes and
> runs on hadoop-1.x and another for hadoop-2.x.  You must chose the hbase
> that suits your hadoop context.
>
> Almost 2k issues [1] are attributed to this version (counting fixes done
> against this and the 0.95.x developer series of releases).  Almost 100
> fixes have been committed since 0.95.2.  I will follow up w/ a synopsis of
> the major changes.
>
> Please take it for a spin.  We are interested in any issues found but in
> particular, we would appreciate feedback on how well the migration of a
(Continue reading)

Elliott Clark | 6 Sep 22:42 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

So I posted an update in HBASE-9338[1].  For me this sinks the release
and I'm -1 biding until we can figure out what's causing this data
loss.

Thanks Devaraj for testing. Good to know that others are also seeing a
failure.  If other could test too I would really appreciate it.

1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9338#comment-13760594

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>
>> hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to supplant
>> the 0.94.x series.
>>
>> hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
>>
>> The signed tarballs are available here:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
>>
>> The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:
>>
>>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/
>>
>> The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:
>>
>>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-127/
>>
>> Note that hbase-0.96.0 comes in two flavors; a build that includes and
(Continue reading)

Stack | 7 Sep 10:19 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@...> wrote:

> So I posted an update in HBASE-9338[1].  For me this sinks the release
> and I'm -1 biding until we can figure out what's causing this data
> loss.
>
> Thanks Devaraj for testing. Good to know that others are also seeing a
> failure.  If other could test too I would really appreciate it.
>
> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9338#comment-13760594

Agree this is a sinker.  Will roll new RC soon as we figure it.  Meantime
any other comments on this RC?

Thanks,
St.Ack
Nick Dimiduk | 9 Sep 19:33 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

I will second Mr. Hsieh's concern for minimizing the impact of unnecessary
API and ABI changes via more intentional evaluation of said changes
(expressed on a different thread). He's done a great effort with that doc
of his, but it needs more eyes. I think we also need consensus on how much
code we're outright deleting for 0.96 and how much is simply being
deprecated. That decision is also driven by his doc. IIRC, he volunteered
to manage an umbrella ticket for this effort.

-n

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@...> wrote:
>
> > So I posted an update in HBASE-9338[1].  For me this sinks the release
> > and I'm -1 biding until we can figure out what's causing this data
> > loss.
> >
> > Thanks Devaraj for testing. Good to know that others are also seeing a
> > failure.  If other could test too I would really appreciate it.
> >
> > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9338#comment-13760594
>
>
> Agree this is a sinker.  Will roll new RC soon as we figure it.  Meantime
> any other comments on this RC?
>
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
(Continue reading)

Nicolas Liochon | 9 Sep 19:34 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

It wanted to run ycsb on the release, but HBASE-9334 breaks the client code
compatibility. Was it the intend?

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@...> wrote:
>
> > So I posted an update in HBASE-9338[1].  For me this sinks the release
> > and I'm -1 biding until we can figure out what's causing this data
> > loss.
> >
> > Thanks Devaraj for testing. Good to know that others are also seeing a
> > failure.  If other could test too I would really appreciate it.
> >
> > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9338#comment-13760594
>
>
> Agree this is a sinker.  Will roll new RC soon as we figure it.  Meantime
> any other comments on this RC?
>
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
Jonathan Hsieh | 9 Sep 22:45 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9477 as a
blocker and should get to it today or tomorrow.

Seems like ycsb and hive depend on these calls quite a bit.

Some of the hive guys also said that the removal of Writable from
Result/Get/Put resulting in some annoying work to reinterpret those in hive
jobs.  It was suggested that we restore those methods but have them
interpret the protobuf format instead of the old writable format.

Jon.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@...> wrote:

> It wanted to run ycsb on the release, but HBASE-9334 breaks the client code
> compatibility. Was it the intend?
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@...> wrote:
> >
> > > So I posted an update in HBASE-9338[1].  For me this sinks the release
> > > and I'm -1 biding until we can figure out what's causing this data
> > > loss.
> > >
> > > Thanks Devaraj for testing. Good to know that others are also seeing a
> > > failure.  If other could test too I would really appreciate it.
> > >
> > > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9338#comment-13760594
(Continue reading)

Enis Söztutar | 9 Sep 23:11 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

I believe it is quite important to now undo the changes to break compat
from client. Deprecating is fine, but for example as Nicolas pointed out,
the change for the return type from List<Keyvalue> to List<Cell> would
force downstream users to develop a shim layer, which will be very hard to
manage for them.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@...> wrote:

> I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9477 as a
> blocker and should get to it today or tomorrow.
>
> Seems like ycsb and hive depend on these calls quite a bit.
>
> Some of the hive guys also said that the removal of Writable from
> Result/Get/Put resulting in some annoying work to reinterpret those in hive
> jobs.  It was suggested that we restore those methods but have them
> interpret the protobuf format instead of the old writable format.
>
> Jon.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@...>
> wrote:
>
> > It wanted to run ycsb on the release, but HBASE-9334 breaks the client
> code
> > compatibility. Was it the intend?
> >
> >
(Continue reading)

Stack | 9 Sep 23:24 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@...> wrote:

> I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9477 as a
> blocker and should get to it today or tomorrow.
>
> Seems like ycsb and hive depend on these calls quite a bit.
>
> Some of the hive guys also said that the removal of Writable from
> Result/Get/Put resulting in some annoying work to reinterpret those in hive
> jobs.  It was suggested that we restore those methods but have them
> interpret the protobuf format instead of the old writable format.
>

You mean add back the following:

public void readFields(final DataInput in);
public void write(final DataOutput out);

St.Ack
Stack | 11 Sep 19:19 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

I am going to roll a new RC.  The hbase-it dataloss problem has been
figured as an issue in the test harness (details to follow).  Any items
folks want to be sure make the next RC?

Thanks,
St.Ack

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to supplant
> the 0.94.x series.
>
> hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
>
> The signed tarballs are available here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
>
> The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:
>
>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/
>
> The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:
>
>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-127/
>
> Note that hbase-0.96.0 comes in two flavors; a build that includes and
> runs on hadoop-1.x and another for hadoop-2.x.  You must chose the hbase
> that suits your hadoop context.
>
(Continue reading)

Devaraj Das | 11 Sep 19:51 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

In my tests, I couldn't (yet) reproduce the dataloss problem, but I
ran into assignment manager issues (mentioned in HBASE-9338) and all
except one has been committed. Could we please hold on until that last
one is committed (HBASE-9480).

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> I am going to roll a new RC.  The hbase-it dataloss problem has been
> figured as an issue in the test harness (details to follow).  Any items
> folks want to be sure make the next RC?
>
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>
>> hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to supplant
>> the 0.94.x series.
>>
>> hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
>>
>> The signed tarballs are available here:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
>>
>> The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:
>>
>>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/
>>
>> The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:
(Continue reading)

Sergey Shelukhin | 11 Sep 20:11 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

HBASE-9496 needs to be in imho, we need to keep compatible APIs. Let me
start on it today.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:

> In my tests, I couldn't (yet) reproduce the dataloss problem, but I
> ran into assignment manager issues (mentioned in HBASE-9338) and all
> except one has been committed. Could we please hold on until that last
> one is committed (HBASE-9480).
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> > I am going to roll a new RC.  The hbase-it dataloss problem has been
> > figured as an issue in the test harness (details to follow).  Any items
> > folks want to be sure make the next RC?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> >
> >> hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to
> supplant
> >> the 0.94.x series.
> >>
> >> hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
> >>
> >> The signed tarballs are available here:
> >>
> >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
(Continue reading)

Enis Söztutar | 11 Sep 20:18 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

We can get in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9445 as well. The
patch is there, but did not hear back from Matteo.

I was going to update the issue for the big linked list test failure. I was
able to repro that on my setup as well on the 5th iteration with 1B
records.

I will spend some time today to understand what is going on. If I can find
a root cause, I'll update the ticket.

Enis

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Sergey Shelukhin
<sergey@...>wrote:

> HBASE-9496 needs to be in imho, we need to keep compatible APIs. Let me
> start on it today.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
> wrote:
>
> > In my tests, I couldn't (yet) reproduce the dataloss problem, but I
> > ran into assignment manager issues (mentioned in HBASE-9338) and all
> > except one has been committed. Could we please hold on until that last
> > one is committed (HBASE-9480).
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> > > I am going to roll a new RC.  The hbase-it dataloss problem has been
> > > figured as an issue in the test harness (details to follow).  Any items
(Continue reading)

Nick Dimiduk | 11 Sep 20:22 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Likewise, some subset of Jon's HBASE-9245 should be resolved before we cut
the next RC.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Sergey Shelukhin
<sergey@...>wrote:

> HBASE-9496 needs to be in imho, we need to keep compatible APIs. Let me
> start on it today.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
> wrote:
>
> > In my tests, I couldn't (yet) reproduce the dataloss problem, but I
> > ran into assignment manager issues (mentioned in HBASE-9338) and all
> > except one has been committed. Could we please hold on until that last
> > one is committed (HBASE-9480).
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> > > I am going to roll a new RC.  The hbase-it dataloss problem has been
> > > figured as an issue in the test harness (details to follow).  Any items
> > > folks want to be sure make the next RC?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to
(Continue reading)

Stack | 11 Sep 22:26 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@...> wrote:

> Likewise, some subset of Jon's HBASE-9245 should be resolved before we cut
> the next RC.
>
>
All sounds good by me.  I've upped to blocker items raised here but it
looks like I could still cut an RC tomorrow or perhaps the day after going
by what is outstanding.   Thanks all.
St.Ack
Stack | 16 Sep 17:38 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@...> wrote:
>
>> Likewise, some subset of Jon's HBASE-9245 should be resolved before we cut
>> the next RC.
>>
>>
> All sounds good by me.  I've upped to blocker items raised here but it
> looks like I could still cut an RC tomorrow or perhaps the day after going
> by what is outstanding.
>

I know I keep saying I'm going to cut a new RC and then the days go by, but
it looks like all the asks are in (I will commit the outstanding this
morning unless owners get to it), so RC this afternoon.

Thanks for your patience,
St.Ack
Nicolas Liochon | 16 Sep 18:26 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

There is HBASE-9521 that I would like to see in the RC.
The mvn site failed on hadoop qa. I restarted it this morning / night, but
hadoop qa is down now.
Tested locally, it works.

Stack, do you mind if I commit it?

Nicolas

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Likewise, some subset of Jon's HBASE-9245 should be resolved before we
> cut
> >> the next RC.
> >>
> >>
> > All sounds good by me.  I've upped to blocker items raised here but it
> > looks like I could still cut an RC tomorrow or perhaps the day after
> going
> > by what is outstanding.
> >
>
> I know I keep saying I'm going to cut a new RC and then the days go by, but
> it looks like all the asks are in (I will commit the outstanding this
> morning unless owners get to it), so RC this afternoon.
(Continue reading)

Enis Söztutar | 16 Sep 20:40 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9514.

As I said in the jira, I think getting this fix is pretty important.
Otherwise, there is a data loss possibility on balancer runs, merges and
region assignments from client running concurrently with RS recovery.

Enis

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@...> wrote:

> There is HBASE-9521 that I would like to see in the RC.
> The mvn site failed on hadoop qa. I restarted it this morning / night, but
> hadoop qa is down now.
> Tested locally, it works.
>
> Stack, do you mind if I commit it?
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Likewise, some subset of Jon's HBASE-9245 should be resolved before we
> > cut
> > >> the next RC.
(Continue reading)

Devaraj Das | 16 Sep 22:34 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

It seems like "move" in general has issues - HBASE-9525 and HBASE-9480
are other symptoms of the problem. Maybe, there are more... Maybe we
should spend a little time to review code and fix such issues?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@...> wrote:
> What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9514.
>
> As I said in the jira, I think getting this fix is pretty important.
> Otherwise, there is a data loss possibility on balancer runs, merges and
> region assignments from client running concurrently with RS recovery.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@...> wrote:
>
>> There is HBASE-9521 that I would like to see in the RC.
>> The mvn site failed on hadoop qa. I restarted it this morning / night, but
>> hadoop qa is down now.
>> Tested locally, it works.
>>
>> Stack, do you mind if I commit it?
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>> >
(Continue reading)

Stack | 17 Sep 02:10 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:

> It seems like "move" in general has issues - HBASE-9525 and HBASE-9480
> are other symptoms of the problem. Maybe, there are more... Maybe we
> should spend a little time to review code and fix such issues?
>
>
HBASE-9525 has been resolved already as has HBASE-9480.  Jimmy is on
HBASE-9514.   He has a patch up for review.

You thinking we NOT cut an RC before spending " a little time to reivew
code and fix such issues"?

Thanks,
St.Ack
Devaraj Das | 17 Sep 02:13 2013

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:
>
>> It seems like "move" in general has issues - HBASE-9525 and HBASE-9480
>> are other symptoms of the problem. Maybe, there are more... Maybe we
>> should spend a little time to review code and fix such issues?
>>
>>
> HBASE-9525 has been resolved already as has HBASE-9480.  Jimmy is on
> HBASE-9514.   He has a patch up for review.
>
> You thinking we NOT cut an RC before spending " a little time to reivew
> code and fix such issues"?
>

Now that Jimmy has fixed the issues (thanks, Jimmy!), I am personally
okay to let an RC happen now.

> Thanks,
> St.Ack

--

-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
(Continue reading)

Stack | 17 Sep 02:22 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> It seems like "move" in general has issues - HBASE-9525 and HBASE-9480
> >> are other symptoms of the problem. Maybe, there are more... Maybe we
> >> should spend a little time to review code and fix such issues?
> >>
> >>
> > HBASE-9525 has been resolved already as has HBASE-9480.  Jimmy is on
> > HBASE-9514.   He has a patch up for review.
> >
> > You thinking we NOT cut an RC before spending " a little time to reivew
> > code and fix such issues"?
> >
>
> Now that Jimmy has fixed the issues (thanks, Jimmy!), I am personally
> okay to let an RC happen now.
>

OK.

There are still some issues to go in.  Trying to verify they don't break
stuff w/ local machine and navigating hadoopqa.

HBASE-9538 "Handle post namespace snapshot files when checking for HFile
V1" -- I'll do this one.
HBASE-9510 "Namespace operations should throw clean exceptions" -- Enis to
(Continue reading)

Stack | 17 Sep 08:17 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Cutting second RC now.
St.Ack

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It seems like "move" in general has issues - HBASE-9525 and HBASE-9480
>> >> are other symptoms of the problem. Maybe, there are more... Maybe we
>> >> should spend a little time to review code and fix such issues?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > HBASE-9525 has been resolved already as has HBASE-9480.  Jimmy is on
>> > HBASE-9514.   He has a patch up for review.
>> >
>> > You thinking we NOT cut an RC before spending " a little time to reivew
>> > code and fix such issues"?
>> >
>>
>> Now that Jimmy has fixed the issues (thanks, Jimmy!), I am personally
>> okay to let an RC happen now.
>>
>
> OK.
>
> There are still some issues to go in.  Trying to verify they don't break
(Continue reading)

Nick Dimiduk | 17 Sep 20:08 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Presumably this has been cut already.

If this RC is sunk for some reason, please consider a resolution to
HBASE-9549 for the next. This cleans up an inconsistency in the way we
handle an empty/null column qualifier in our edge interfaces (thrift, rest,
mapreduce). It all comes down to proper parsing in KeyValue#parseColumn. It
is a breaking change in a rather subtle way for an edge case.

Thanks,
Nick

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:

> Cutting second RC now.
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It seems like "move" in general has issues - HBASE-9525 and
> HBASE-9480
> >> >> are other symptoms of the problem. Maybe, there are more... Maybe we
> >> >> should spend a little time to review code and fix such issues?
(Continue reading)

Stack | 17 Sep 20:10 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@...> wrote:

> Presumably this has been cut already.
>
>
Yeah.  Takes a while to get it up.  On it.

> If this RC is sunk for some reason, please consider a resolution to
> HBASE-9549 for the next. This cleans up an inconsistency in the way we
> handle an empty/null column qualifier in our edge interfaces (thrift, rest,
> mapreduce). It all comes down to proper parsing in KeyValue#parseColumn. It
> is a breaking change in a rather subtle way for an edge case.
>
>
Will do.  Mark it 0.96.1 and will pull it in if another RC.
St.Ack
Nick Dimiduk | 17 Sep 22:28 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

Since the RC was sunk, can I get some more eyes on this? It touches a bunch
of components...

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@...> wrote:

> Presumably this has been cut already.
>
> If this RC is sunk for some reason, please consider a resolution to
> HBASE-9549 for the next. This cleans up an inconsistency in the way we
> handle an empty/null column qualifier in our edge interfaces (thrift, rest,
> mapreduce). It all comes down to proper parsing in KeyValue#parseColumn. It
> is a breaking change in a rather subtle way for an edge case.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>
>> Cutting second RC now.
>> St.Ack
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Stack <stack@...> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@...>
(Continue reading)

Stack | 16 Sep 21:00 2013
Picon

Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@...> wrote:

> There is HBASE-9521 that I would like to see in the RC.
> The mvn site failed on hadoop qa. I restarted it this morning / night, but
> hadoop qa is down now.
> Tested locally, it works.
>
> Stack, do you mind if I commit it?
>

Please commit. Its +1'd and had a good run just previous (the site fail is
OOME unrelated usually).
St.Ack

Gmane