I think these concerns are well-intended, but they feel rooted in uncertainty rather than in factual examples of areas where risk is present. I
would appreciate elaboration on the specific areas of risk that folks imagine.I would encourage those who express skepticism to try the patch,
and I endorse Ayushi's proposal to enable it by default.– ScottOn Jul 26, 2023, at 12:03 PM, "Miklosovic, Stefan"
<stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> wrote:We can make it opt-in, wait one major to see what bugs pop up and we might do that opt-out
eventually. We do not need to hurry up with this. I understand everybody's expectations and excitement but it really boils down to one line
change in yaml. People who are so much after the performance will be definitely aware of this knob to turn on to squeeze even more perf ...I
look around dtests Jeremiah mentioned but I would just moved on and make it opt-in if we are not 100% persuaded about it
_yet_.________________________________________From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org>Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 20:48To:
dev@cassandra.apache.orgSubject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by defaultNetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.What comes to mind is how we brought down people
clusters and made sstables unreadable with the introduction of the chunk_length configuration in 1.0. It wasn't about how tested the
compression libraries were, but about the new configuration itself. Introducing silent defaults has more surface area for bugs than
introducing explicit defaults that only apply to new clusters and are so opt-in for existing clusters.On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 20:13, J. D.
Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com<mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote:Enabling ssl for the upgrade dtests would cover this use
case. If those don’t currently exist I see no reason it won’t work so I would be fine for someone to figure it out post merge if there is a
concern. What JCE provider you use should have no upgrade concerns.-JeremiahOn Jul 26, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan
<stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com<mailto:stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com>> wrote:Am I understanding it correctly that tests you are
talking about are only required in case we make ACCP to be default provider?I can live with not making it default and still deliver it if tests
are not required. I do not think that these kind of tests were required couple mails ago when opt-in was on the table.While I tend to agree
with people here who seem to consider testing this scenario to be unnecessary exercise, I am afraid that I will not be able to deliver that as
testing something like this is quite complicated matter. There is a lot of aspects which could be tested I can not even enumerate right now ...
so I try to meet you somewhere in the middle.________________________________________From: Mick Semb Wever
<m...@apache.org<mailto:m...@apache.org>>Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 17:34To:
dev@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by defaultNetApp Security
WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Can you
say more about the shape of your concern?Integration testing where some nodes are running JCE and others accp, and various configurations that
are and are not accp compatible/native.I'm not referring to (re-) unit testing accp or jce themselves, or matrix testing over them, but our
commitment to always-on upgrades against all possible configurations that integrate. We've history with config changes breaking upgrades, for
as simple as they are.
