I don't know that we expect to fix anything if we don't know it is affected yet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kind Regards, Brandon On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:37 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >>> >
