Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - ACCUMULO-958 - Pluggable encryption in walogs


+
Josh Elser 2013-01-30, 14:13
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-30, 14:50
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-30, 14:51
+
Eric Newton 2013-01-30, 15:09
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-30, 15:40
+
William Slacum 2013-01-30, 16:05
Copy link to this message
-
Re: ACCUMULO-958 - Pluggable encryption in walogs
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-30, 18:45
Bill,

The release date was not pushed back just for this ticket -- there were
several other changes that motivated that date change. We can discuss that
aspect separately from a discussion of ACCUMULO-958, and we need to start a
separate thread to talk about the remaining milestones before the 1.5.0
release.

I would also like to amend your statement to be "... the patch has no value
added [for] general users [without the addition of extensions that are not
included with the patch]." This is a more accurate yet much weaker premise,
and you should consider the implications on the broader ecosystem.

It seems to me that the main points against this patch are that it is
imperfect. I don't think that feature freeze is the time at which we should
demand perfection. Several valid issues have been raised, which should be
fixed by code freeze (the date of which is not yet set). However, the
utility of this work is obvious to me. At the end of the day, what bar are
we trying to set for inclusion of a patch?

Adam

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM, William Slacum <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Bottom line, the patch has no value added to general users. The idea behind
> pushing back a release date to stuff in unoperational code is very bad
> practice. It sets a precedent for not considering alternative approaches
> while simultaneously having no justification for choosing the approach we
> did. If a specific customer/group/person wants a feature, and that feature
> does not exist yet, the code is freely available to be modified,
> distributed and open to public review. Adam, I strongly disagree that
> forking the code is bad, considering the progress that other projects make
> specifically because they have experimental forks (HBase).
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let me attempt to make another argument for why the 958 patch should be
> > included in 1.5.0. What this patch represents is not an encryption
> solution
> > for WAL, but an experimental extension point that will be used for
> building
> > an encryption solution as a pluggable module. We need to judge its merit
> > based on whether it is a successful experimental extension point or not.
> > There are three main reasons for including the patch in 1.5.0:
> > 1. Test the performance impact of the null cipher solution (default
> > configuration) in all the performance tests we will be running for the
> > 1.5.0 release. If it causes problems there then we can roll it back.
> > 2. Enable the use of this extension after 1.5 is released. External
> > experiments have dependencies on this extension point. Without the
> > extension point we will have to test with unreleased versions of
> Accumulo,
> > which would be less than ideal.
> > 3. It is not harmful and somebody wants it. The reason for wanting this
> > code in is well documented, so you need a very strong reason to throw it
> > out. Otherwise you will encourage forking of the project (which would be
> > bad).
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Some comments about the comments in ACCUMULO-958:
> > >
> > > Josh writes:
> > >
> > > "We still have the ability to review this even after the feature freeze
> > > happens, it's just frustrating from my point of view in generating the
> > best
> > > 1.5.0 candidate possible (we tend to go through x.y.0 releases pretty
> > darn
> > > quick)."
> > >
> > > John writes:
> > >
> > > "Yes, but we get stuck on x.y.* for a year or so, so it does become a
> > race
> > > to get all the features you want to see in the next year."
> > >
> > > As Accumulo matures, we will need to start thinking a little more
> > flexibly
> > > about what goes into minor releases.  We have implemented new (small)
> > > features in minor releases before.
> > >
> > > I would have no problem including ACCUMULO-958 into 1.5.1 after a test
> > > phase, and after some basic experience with the feature.  However I'm
+
Keith Turner 2013-01-30, 19:20
+
William Slacum 2013-01-30, 19:02
+
Keith Turner 2013-01-30, 19:26
+
Benson Margulies 2013-01-30, 20:13
+
Josh Elser 2013-01-31, 02:24
+
Keith Turner 2013-01-30, 16:10
+
dlmarion@... 2013-01-30, 17:49
+
Aaron Cordova 2013-01-30, 18:29
+
Mike Drob 2013-01-30, 22:42