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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90


Copy link to this message
-
Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
I dont have power to vote. But if it helps, we are running with HBASE-3777  on
top of 0.90.3 from the day it was committed. The qps on one of our data
centers is 50K.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Andy for your support.
> Appreciate it.
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried
> > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by
> > > several different teams.
> >
> >
> > This makes sense. My +1 was partly an agreement that I'd try it.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >        - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
> > >
> > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried
> > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by
> > > several different teams. EG if we can verify that the CIQ workload,
> > > the SU workload, and the TM workload all work with this patch with no
> > > adverse effects, seems reasonable to commit. But just passing unit
> > > tests doesn't seem like enough to me since it changes behavior in a
> > > way that is difficult to predict.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>  One option is to publish the backported patch which passes all unit
> > tests
> > >>  and 'certified' by people who play trial on it.
> > >>
> > >>  The switch proposed by Todd is nice but difficult to implement.
> > >>
> > >>  Cheers
> > >>
> > >>  On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>  On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >>>  >>> We could query user@ before considering commit.
> > >>>  > Let's do this.
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  > Objections ?
> > >>>  >
> > >>>
> > >>>  I don't think most users will know whether this will break them
> > > until
> > >>>  it's "too late". Hence defaulting to current behavior,
> > > and letting
> > >>>  people switch it if the current behavior isn't working for them.
> > >>>
> > >>>  -Todd
> > >>>  --
> > >>>  Todd Lipcon
> > >>>  Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
>