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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Copy link to this message
Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Thanks a bunch Nathan, for clearly letting us know the Yahoo! team's perspective.

We are getting started on rolling upgrades from YARN side (Sid opened YARN-666) and I hear HDFS side is too.

We definitely need compatibility and testing kits. Have to get started on this.

Work-preserving restart on YARN side - we plan to scope down next.


On May 16, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Nathan Roberts wrote:

> (initially respond on general@, sorry about that. copied here)
> +1 (non-binding)
> From my perspective:
> * The key feature that will drive me to adopt 2.x is Rolling Upgrades
> * In order to get to rolling upgrades, we need a compatibility story that
> is significantly better than we have today
> ** We need a comprehensive definition of what compatibility really means
>  ** We need better testing in place to verify we're not breaking
> compatibility
> ** We need better definition and testing of what rolling upgrades really
> means. Rolling between bug-fix releases ­ Required, Rolling between minor
> releases ­ Required, Rolling between major releases ­ Desired.
>  ** We need work-preserving restart on the YARN side. Restarting jobs
> isn't sufficient.
> ** ...
> * Given that Rolling upgrades aren't there yet, and there is still work to
> be done to solidify the compatibility story, I'm ok with the feature
> window remaining open until these are in place, especially given the fact
> that the proposed features are likely to have non-zero impact on
> compatibility/rolling_upgrades.
> * I'd certainly like a release with rolling upgrades as soon as possible,
> so I feel like the feature window needs to ramp down very quickly.
> Something like 2.0.5-beta in May with the current list of proposed
> features, then 2.0.6-beta in late summer with full rolling upgrade support
> and a solid compatibility story, would seem like a reasonable timeline.
> Once we have a beta release with rolling upgrades, I can look at pushing
> 2.x to some of our larger clusters.
> Nathan Roberts
> On 5/15/13 1:06 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Seems like you forgot to bcc. Forwarding this to general.
>> Thanks,
>> +Vinod
>> On May 15, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>> A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the
>>> recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the
>>> voting itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc.
>>> IMHO technical arguments (incompatibility b/w 2.0 & 2.1, current
>>> stability of 3 features under debate etc.) have been lost in the
>>> discussion in favor of non-technical (almost dramatic) nuances such as
>>> "seizing the moment". There is now dangerous talk of tolerating
>>> incompatibility b/w 2.0 and 2.1) - this is a red flag for me;
>>> particularly when there are just 3 features being debated and active
>>> committers and contributors are confident of and ready to stand by their
>>> work. All patches, I believe, are ready to be merged in the the next few
>>> days per discussions on jira. This will, clearly, not delay the other
>>> API work which everyone agrees is crucial. As a result, I feel no
>>> recourse but to restart a new vote - all attempts at calm, reasoned,
>>> civil discussion based on technical arguments have come to naught - I
>>> apologize for the thrash caused to everyone's attention.
>>> To get past all of this confusion, I'd like to present an alternate,
>>> specific proposal for consideration.
>>> I propose we continue the original plan and make a 2.0.5-beta release
>>> by May end with the following content:
>>> # HDFS-347
>>> # HDFS Snapshots
>>> # Windows support
>>> # Necessary & final API/protocol changes such as:
>>> * Final YARN API changes: YARN-386
>>> * MR Binary Compatibility: MAPREDUCE-5108
>>> * Final RPC cleanup: HADOOP-8990
>>> People working on the above features have all expressed considerable