So, based on this, it looks like we'd need to upgrade Pulsar to use BK 4.15.0 to get M1 compatibility? What kind of changes will that introduce into Pulsar?
Devin G. Bost On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 8:17 AM Nicolò Boschi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > this is a follow-up discussion about the RocksDB upgrade that happened at > yesterday's Apache Pulsar community meeting ( > https://lists.apache.org/thread/tq7dsws72zf9r7qzr4l567z9w346ksbm). > > We recently reverted the RocksDB upgrade due to runtime compatibility > errors (more details here https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14962). > The main reason to upgrade RocksDB is the Apple M1 compatibility. > > Shortly, we cannot upgrade RocksDB to a version greater than 6.17.2 because > BookKeeper needs to be recompiled with the newer version of RocksDB. > > There's an ongoing discussion on BookKeeper mailing list about including > the RocksDB upgrade in 4.14.5. Also 4.15.0 is going to be released soon > (with the RocksDB upgrade). > https://lists.apache.org/thread/dsdltmoy5ggqx4oj7hrt13hqok80d4jf > > At the moment, Pulsar 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 and master are using 4.14.4. > > From the Pulsar side we are interested in upgrading to 4.14.5 because > there's an important bugfix ( > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3110) > that we should port to all the active branches. > So basically if 4.14.5 will contain the RocksDB upgrade, we'll need to bump > to the same version also in the active branches to match the runtime > compatibility. If not, we're safe to upgrade to 4.14.5 without RocksDB. > > My personal opinion is that the best scenario would be: > - Update BK to 4.14.5 on active branches without RocksDB > - Update BK to 4.15.0 on master (and so Pulsar 2.11) with RocksDB and Apple > M1 compatibility. > > I think we could push to the BookKeeper ML to not include the RocksDB > upgrade in 4.14.5 > > Nicolò Boschi >
