Hi All,
Thanks for voting and suggestions.
Vote passed after 2 weeks with 7 binding +1s (Wei-Chiu, Ethan, Siyao,
Tsz-Wo, Sammi, Nilotpal, Attila).
-Ashish
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:55 AM Attila Doroszlai
wrote:
> > It looks to me these protocol versions and layout versions concerns can
> be
>
> It looks to me these protocol versions and layout versions concerns can be
> addressed quickly. I took a stab at it and posted them in three separate
> PRs.
Thanks Wei-Chiu for addressing compatibility concerns, I'm OK with
merging the feature branch.
-Attila
--
+1 for merging the hsync branch.
- Nilotpal Nandi
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 8:22 AM Sammi Chen wrote:
> +1 for merging the hsync branch.
>
> Note: I have contributed to branch HDDS-7593.
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 12:22, Ashish kumar wrote:
>
> > Hi Attila,
> >
> > Compatibility fixes are addresse
+1 for merging the hsync branch.
Note: I have contributed to branch HDDS-7593.
On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 12:22, Ashish kumar wrote:
> Hi Attila,
>
> Compatibility fixes are addressed in the feature branch.
>
> Thanks Wei-Chiu for the fix.
>
> -Ashish
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 4:39 AM Wei-Chiu Chua
Hi Attila,
Compatibility fixes are addressed in the feature branch.
Thanks Wei-Chiu for the fix.
-Ashish
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 4:39 AM Wei-Chiu Chuang wrote:
> Thanks Attila for the feedback,
>
> It looks to me these protocol versions and layout versions concerns can be
> addressed quickly.
Thanks Attila for the feedback,
It looks to me these protocol versions and layout versions concerns can be
addressed quickly. I took a stab at it and posted them in three separate
PRs.
https://github.com/apache/ozone/pull/7013 HDDS-11258. [hsync] Add new OM
layout version.
https://github.com/apac
> > Both issues can be addressed with new layout versions. I will open JIRA
> > tickets to include these fixes in the next release, version 1.5.0.
>
> Thanks Wei-Chiu, I'm ok with handling these in follow up tasks. Please
> share the Jira links when you have them. This was my main concern, so the
>
+1 for merging the hsync branch.
Tsz-Wo
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 8:14 PM Ashish kumar wrote:
> Thanks WeiChiu, Ethan, Siyao for the vote.
> Anyone else like to vote?
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 5:37 AM Siyao Meng
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on the merge.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I have contributed to branch H
Thanks WeiChiu, Ethan, Siyao for the vote.
Anyone else like to vote?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 5:37 AM Siyao Meng
wrote:
> +1 on the merge.
>
> Disclaimer: I have contributed to branch HDDS-7593.
>
> -Siyao
>
> On Jul 30, 2024 at 3:39:25 PM, Ethan Rose wrote:
>
> > Thanks Wei-Chiu, I'm ok with ha
+1 on the merge.
Disclaimer: I have contributed to branch HDDS-7593.
-Siyao
On Jul 30, 2024 at 3:39:25 PM, Ethan Rose wrote:
> Thanks Wei-Chiu, I'm ok with handling these in follow up tasks. Please
> share the Jira links when you have them. This was my main concern, so the
> merge is +1 from m
Thanks Wei-Chiu, I'm ok with handling these in follow up tasks. Please
share the Jira links when you have them. This was my main concern, so the
merge is +1 from me now.
Ethan
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 5:34 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang wrote:
> I had an offline discussion with Ethan regarding a couple of p
I had an offline discussion with Ethan regarding a couple of potential
issues:
1.
*New Client with ozone.fs.hsync.enabled*: If a new client with
ozone.fs.hsync.enabled sends an hsync request to an old OM, the request
is sent as a KeyCommit request with additional fields for hsync. The
Hi Wei-Chiu, I'm still unclear on the compatibility requirements of this
feature.
Feature flags are not a substitute for layout versions. Layout versions are
monotonic: they make sure once something is enabled it cannot be disabled
via a downgrade (the downgraded cluster will fail to start). Featu
hi Ethan,
The OM layout version change was for rejecting hsync requests to OM until
the upgrade completes.
The "HSYC" layout version was shipped in Ozone 1.4.0.
IIRC I did touch upon this in the release vote thread, that because there's
a feature flag ozone.fs.hsync.enabled which disables the feat
Hi Ashish, thanks for the updates.
Regarding this:
> In the old design, lease recovery was dependent only on the client and OM,
> but now it involves datanode as well.
I'm not quite following because the master branch already has an OM layout
feature called "hsync" that is finalized for any depl
Thanks Ethan for looking into this.
>>It looks like this line in the merge checklist was not updated.
Updated the checklist.
>> Can you go
into more details about the OM compatibility for lease recovery or other
operations?
Lease recovery is completely redesigned and so both client and server nee
Thanks for all the work on this. Looks good overall, just a few
questions on compatibility:
It looks like this line in the merge checklist was not updated. Can you go
into more details about the OM compatibility for lease recovery or other
operations?
> A new OM version number was introduced to p
I am +1 (binding)
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:05 AM Ashish kumar
wrote:
> Hi Ozone developers,
>
> I would like to propose merging HDDS-7593 (HSync and lease recovery)
> feature branch into master.
>
> This feature is to support HSync and lease recovery,
> which enables HBase to run on Ozone.
> Mor
18 matches
Mail list logo
