Re: August 5.0 Freeze (with waivers…) and a 5.0-alpha1

SGTM +1 On 27/7/23 6:39, Dinesh Joshi wrote: Mick, This sounds like a good plan. CEP-33 and 34 are ready to go. We're running into CI related issues but once they clear up we'll merge them. I anticipate we'll be done in a week's time. Thanks, Dinesh On Jul 26, 2023, at 3:27 PM, Mick Semb

Re: Status Update on CEP-7 Storage Attached Indexes (SAI)

Nice one! On 26/7/23 21:11, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: Thanks Caleb! Great  job everyone! 🚀👏🏻 On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 15:07, J. D. Jordan wrote: Thanks for all the work here! On Jul 26, 2023, at 1:57 PM, Caleb Rackliffe wrote:  Alright, the cep-7-sai branch is now me

Re: August 5.0 Freeze (with waivers…) and a 5.0-alpha1

Mick, This sounds like a good plan. CEP-33 and 34 are ready to go. We're running into CI related issues but once they clear up we'll merge them. I anticipate we'll be done in a week's time. Thanks, Dinesh > On Jul 26, 2023, at 3:27 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > The previous thread¹ on w

Re: [Discuss] Repair inside C*

I agree that it would be ideal for Cassandra to have a repair scheduler in-DB. That said I would happily support an effort to bring repair scheduling to the sidecar immediately. This has nothing blocking it, and would potentially enable the sidecar to provide an official repair scheduling soluti

Re: [Discuss] Repair inside C*

I concur, repair is an intrinsic part of the database and belongs inside it. We can certainly expose a REST control plane API via the sidecar for triggering it on demand, scheduling, etc. That said, there are various implementation of repair scheduling and orchestration that a lot of organizati

Re: August 5.0 Freeze (with waivers…) and a 5.0-alpha1

I think this plan seems reasonable to me. +1 -Jeremiah > On Jul 26, 2023, at 5:28 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >  > > The previous thread¹ on when to freeze 5.0 landed on freezing the first week > of August, with a waiver in place for TCM and Accord to land later (but > before October). >

August 5.0 Freeze (with waivers…) and a 5.0-alpha1

The previous thread¹ on when to freeze 5.0 landed on freezing the first week of August, with a waiver in place for TCM and Accord to land later (but before October). With JDK8 now dropped and SAI and UCS merged, the only expected 5.0 work that hasn't landed is Vector search (CEP-30). Are there an

Re: [Discuss] Repair inside C*

I'm 100% in favor of repair being part of the core DB, not the sidecar. The current (and past) state of things where running the DB correctly *requires* running a separate process (either community maintained or official C* sidecar) is incredibly painful for folks. The idea that your data inte

Re: [Discuss] Repair inside C*

+0 to sidecar, in order to make that work well we need to expose state that the node has so the sidecar can make good calls, if it runs in the node then nothing has to be exposed. One thing to flesh out is where do the “smarts” live? If the range has too many partitions, which system knows to

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

+1 to the "on by default" camp. > 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 I think a key difference here is that changing chunk length is something that materially changes behavior and

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

It sounds like some of the concerns have shifted then. I would like to better understand the YAML one. Like Jeremiah said it may be a better topic for the ticket. Would appreciate an example exception or error people are concerned about. If the issue is the “fail fast” on start I’m sure we can fin

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

I had a discussion with Mick on slack. His concern is not with enabling ACCP. His concern is around the testing of the new C* yaml config code which is included in the patch that is used to decide if ACCP should be enabled or not, and if startup should fail if it can’t be enabled. I agree. We s

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

+1 Scott. And agreed all involved are looking out for the best interests of C* users. And I appreciate those with concerns contributing to addressing them. I’m all for making upgrades smooth bc I do them so often. A huge portion of our 4.1 qualification is “will it break on upgrade”? Because of th

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

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 end

Re: Status Update on CEP-7 Storage Attached Indexes (SAI)

Thanks Caleb! Great job everyone! 🚀👏🏻 On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 15:07, J. D. Jordan wrote: > Thanks for all the work here! > > On Jul 26, 2023, at 1:57 PM, Caleb Rackliffe > wrote: > >  > > Alright, the cep-7-sai branch is now merged to trunk! > > Now we move to addressing the most urgent items

Re: Status Update on CEP-7 Storage Attached Indexes (SAI)

Thanks for all the work here!On Jul 26, 2023, at 1:57 PM, Caleb Rackliffe wrote:Alright, the cep-7-sai branch is now merged to trunk!Now we move to addressing the most urgent items from "Phase 2" (CASSANDRA-18473) before (and in the case of some testing after) the 5.0 freeze...On Wed, Jul 26, 202

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

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

Re: Status Update on CEP-7 Storage Attached Indexes (SAI)

Alright, the cep-7-sai branch is now merged to trunk! Now we move to addressing the most urgent items from "Phase 2" ( CASSANDRA-18473 ) before (and in the case of some testing after) the 5.0 freeze... On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 6:07 AM Jeremy H

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

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 are

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

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. -Jeremiah > On Jul 26, 2023,

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

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-i

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

We do and I’m sensitive to that 100% but there is no reason ACCP should break upgrades afaik. The algorithms it implements are identical and for the ones it doesn’t the JRE implementation is used — ACCP is the higher priority implementation. Do we have any examples of it breaking anything? Or that

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

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 c

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

I left my comments on the JIRA itself but generally they mirror Scott and Joeys thoughts. Jordan On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 07:26 C. Scott Andreas wrote: > Peter, thanks for your message. > > You are receiving these emails because your address is subscribed to the > Apache Cassandra "dev@" develop

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Peter, thanks for your message.You are receiving these emails because your address is subscribed to the Apache Cassandra "dev@" developer mailing list. You can unsubscribe from this list by sending an email to dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org. Subscribers to the mailing list are not able to

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Can you say more about the shape of your concern?JCA/JCE conformance and correctness of the functions implemented are a responsibility of the ACCP/Corretto test suite (link). These are thoroughly exercised by Amazon and bundled into the Corretto JDK distribution Amazon ships as well.With regard to

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

> > So if a service is not there it will just search where it is next. I > completely forgot this aspect of it ... Folks from Corretto forgot to > mention this behavior as well, interesting. It is not as we are going to > use this _as the only provider_. > I'm still uncomfortable assuming upgrade

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Yes, you are right. I know the providers have their preference and we are installing Corretto as the first one. So if a service is not there it will just search where it is next. I completely forgot this aspect of it ... Folks from Corretto forgot to mention this behavior as well, interesting.

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS EMAIL From: "C. Scott Andreas" Reply-To: "dev@cassandra.apache.org" Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 6:19 AM To: "dev@cassandra.apache.org" Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default Jeremiah, that’s my understanding as well. ACCP accelerates a

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Jeremiah, that’s my understanding as well. ACCP accelerates a subset of functions and delegates the rest. In years of using ACCP with Cassandra, I have yet to see an issue - or any case in which adopting ACCP was anything other than a strict benefit. - Scott > On Jul 26, 2023, at 5:33 AM, J. D

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

I thought the crypto providers were supposed to “ask the next one down the line” if something is not supported? Have you tried some unsupported thing and seen it break? My understanding of the providers being an ordered list was that isn’t supposed to happen. -Jeremiah > On Jul 26, 2023, at

Re: Status Update on CEP-7 Storage Attached Indexes (SAI)

Thanks Caleb and Mike and Zhao and Andres and Piotr and everyone else involved with the SAI implementation!On Jul 25, 2023, at 3:01 PM, Caleb Rackliffe wrote:Just a quick update...With CASSANDRA-18670 complete, and all remaining items in the category of performance optimizations and further testi

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

That means that if somebody is on 4.0 and they upgrade to 5.0, if they use > some ciphers / protocols / algorithms which are not in Corretto, it might > break their upgrade. > If there's any risk of breaking upgrades we have to go with (2). We support a variation of JCE configurations, and I do

Re: [DISCUSS] Using ACCP or tc-native by default

Hi, we need to be on the same page here and this is crucial to get right. We evaluated that Corretto is a subset of what is in SunJCE provider (bundled in JRE). It is not true that Corretto is just "a drop-in replacement". That means that if somebody is on 4.0 and they upgrade to 5.0, if they u