Not voting on this, however, if we expect to fix something specific between an RC and GA, then we shouldn’t be starting a vote on RC. In that case it should be another beta.
> On 27 Jun 2024, at 18:30, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The last time paxos v2 blocked us in CASSANDRA-19617 which also > affected 4.1, I didn't get a sense of strong usage from the community, > so I agree that RC shouldn't be blocked but this can get fixed before > GA. +1 from me. > > Kind Regards, > Brandon > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:11 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >> >> 5.0 is a massive milestone. A huge thank you to everyone that's invested >> their time into the release. I've done a lot of testing, benchmarking, and >> tire kicking and it's truly mind blowing how much has gone into 5.0 and how >> great it is for the community. >> >> I am a bit concerned that CASSANDRA-19668, which I found in 4.1, will also >> affect 5.0. This is a pretty serious bug, where using Paxos v2 + off heap >> memtables can cause a SIGSEV process crash. I've seen this happen about a >> dozen times with a client over the last 3 months. Since the new trie >> memtables rely on off heap, and both Trie memtables & Paxos V2 is so >> compelling (esp for multi-dc users), I think there's a good chance that >> we'll be making an already bad problem even worse, for folks that use LWT. >> >> Unfortunately, until next week I'm unable to put any time into this; I'm on >> vacation with my family. I wish I had been able to confirm and raise this >> issue as a 5.0 blocker sooner, but I've deliberately tried to keep work >> stuff out of my mind. Since I'm not 100% sure if this affects 5.0, I'm not >> blocking the RC, but I don't feel comfortable putting a +1 on a release that >> I'm at least 80% certain contains a process-crashing bug. >> >> I have a simple 4.1 patch in CASSANDRA-19668, but I haven't landed a commit >> in several years and I have zero recollection of the entire process of >> getting it in, nor have I spent any time writing unit or dtests in the C* >> repo. I ran a test of 160MM LWTs over several hours with my 4.1 branch and >> didn't hit any issues, but my client ran for weeks without hitting it so >> it's hard to say if I've actually addressed the problem, as it's a rare race >> condition. Fwiw, I don't need to be the one to handle CASSANDRA-19668, so >> if someone wants to address it before me, please feel free. It will likely >> take me a lot longer to deal with than someone more involved with the >> process, and I'd want 2 sets of eyes on it anyways given what I already >> mentioned previously about committing and testing. >> >> Jon >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:53 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-rc1 for release. >>>> >>>> sha1: b43f0b2e9f4cb5105764ef9cf4ece404a740539a >>>> Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-rc1-tentative >>>> Maven Artifacts: >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1336/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-rc1/ >>> >>> >>> >>> The three green CI runs for this are >>> - >>> https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/driftx/cassandra?branch=5.0-rc1-2 >>> - >>> https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/driftx/cassandra?branch=5.0-rc1-3 >>> - >>> https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/driftx/cassandra?branch=5.0-rc1-4 >>> >>>
