Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[CELEBORN-1400] Bump Ratis version from 2.5.1 to 3.0.1 #2480

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

SteNicholas
Copy link
Member

@SteNicholas SteNicholas commented Apr 24, 2024

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Bump Ratis version from 2.5.1 to 3.0.1. Address incompatible changes:

Why are the changes needed?

Bump Ratis version from 2.5.1 to 3.0.1. Ratis has released v3.0.0, v3.0.1, which release note refers to 3.0.0, 3.0.1. The 3.0.x version include new features like pluggable metrics and lease read, etc, some improvements and bugfixes including:

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

Cluster manual test.

@SteNicholas SteNicholas force-pushed the CELEBORN-1400 branch 5 times, most recently from 4ac7ef8 to b9e92b9 Compare April 24, 2024 18:53
@SteNicholas
Copy link
Member Author

Ping @FMX, @szetszwo, @pan3793, @cxzl25.

Copy link

@szetszwo szetszwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The change looks good. (Note that I am not familiar with CELEBORN.)

@SteNicholas
Copy link
Member Author

@szetszwo, thanks for your review. cc @FMX.

@pan3793
Copy link
Member

pan3793 commented Apr 25, 2024

does it allow rolling upgrades? should we upgrade followers or the leader first or something else?

@SteNicholas
Copy link
Member Author

SteNicholas commented Apr 25, 2024

@pan3793, the rolling upgrade strategy should be:

  1. Try to upgrade a non-leader master node first.
  2. Follow the strategy of upgrading a single worker node - multiple worker nodes - all upgrades.

cc @RexXiong.

@FMX
Copy link
Contributor

FMX commented Apr 25, 2024

@SteNicholas Hi, I wonder if this PR affects the rolling upgrade process. Can ratis 3.0.1 servers communicate with ratis 2.5.1 servers?
Can a server of ratis 3.0.1 recover from meta data generated by the ratis 2.5.1 server?

@SteNicholas
Copy link
Member Author

@FMX, I didn't test the rolling upgrade process in cluster. I would like to try rolling upgrade for validation of above question.

@AngersZhuuuu
Copy link
Contributor

We meet same issue as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-1860, better to upgrade ratis

@SteNicholas
Copy link
Member Author

SteNicholas commented May 28, 2024

@FMX, @pan3793, @AngersZhuuuu, I have tested the rolling upgrade process in test environment as follows:
image
The result of rolling upgrade is that there is no compatibility problem between the communication of 2.5.1 ratis server and 3.0.1 ratis server.
image
Meanwhile, I have run a test application successfully based on the above situation of master:
image
PTAL.

@SteNicholas SteNicholas requested a review from RexXiong May 28, 2024 12:52
Copy link
Contributor

@RexXiong RexXiong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @SteNicholas, LGTM overall. I am just wondering what the write buffer size we should set, and what is the reason?

Copy link
Contributor

@AngersZhuuuu AngersZhuuuu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@RexXiong RexXiong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks!

@SteNicholas
Copy link
Member Author

Ping @pan3793, @FMX. PTAL.

@RexXiong
Copy link
Contributor

Merge to main(v0.5.0)

@RexXiong RexXiong closed this in 2a57fab May 30, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants