-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.2k
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
Release 1.9 (Node.js 12) #10527
Release 1.9 (Node.js 12) #10527
Conversation
Node 10 dropped support for 32-bit Linux: nodejs/build#885
Just updated one of our more complicated apps to Meteor 1.9; at first look everything seems to work just fine. The only thing holding us back was fourseven:scss (which relies on an older version of node-sass, which doesn't support Node 11). Created this PR to update node-sass in meteor-scss: Meteor-Community-Packages/meteor-scss#290 For anyone wanting to try out Meteor 1.9 with fourseven:scss: |
@@ -1 +1 @@ | |||
METEOR@1.8 | |||
METEOR@1.8.1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this be 1.9-alpha.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The modules test app runs from a checkout during Circle CI self-tests, so the .meteor/release
file doesn't really matter (although we totally could update the version to METEOR@1.9-alpha.0
). The reason it shows up in the changes for this PR is because I recently merged release-1.8.2
into release-1.9
(and both PRs are targeting master
, which doesn't have the change).
According to nodejs/node#25082 the initial version of Node.js 12 will be released today but LTS will start somewhen in October, so I guess you mean the latter one. |
@SimonSimCity Right, I was mostly thinking about the LTS schedule. That said, we will update this branch to Node.js 12 as soon as this |
Thanks. Just released a new version |
@benjamn are there any specific areas of interest you would like to have tested? This way people will know what to look out for. |
i'm not sure if this is worth mentioning, but we've been struggling with meteor build times for quite some time(20min+). Out of curiosity i updated to I'm not sure yet if anything is broken - dosn't seem like it -, but development cold start time was cut by min 5x(before i could go and make a coffee, now it was almost instant) - didn't benchmark it yet though. Our build time without build-cache(which i think is the important one when using galaxy) dropped from
Looking forward for this improvements in a stable release 🚀 💃 edit: for the people wondering how |
@gunn It sounds like you've been testing with the alphas/betas and maybe there's a cached file lying around somewhere? I wasn't able to reproduce this starting from a |
@benjamn observations from the monitoring tools. I use a no-traffic project of a pretty large code bundle. On "standby" I want to highlight the move of memory and processor for 1.8.x to 1.9-rc.0, 1.9-rc.1 and 1.9-rc2: 1.8.x to 1.9-rc.0 1.9-rc.1 1.9-rc.2 behaves exactly like 1.9-rc.1 |
@paulincai A couple of observations regarding those graphs:
This is the same project from the last 8 hours of the above graph: So the spikes are just not visible when you view a larger time range. |
@benjamn we are getting an issue with 1.9-rc.2. The build was not starting in production upon starting meteor service, we get:
upon checking, the one available is
72 and 57 point to NODE_MODULE_VERSION. We did not get this problem with 1.9-rc.1 |
@rj-david What's your production environment? Galaxy, or something else? That problem can happen if you use a different version of Node to run the |
And that was the case. We were running P.S. 1.9-rc.2 was running without issues |
@sebakerckhof I do appreciate your explanation about the fibers, I followed your contributions in this areas but I am not sure I understand the rest. Let me please explain it for you again. |
@paulincai What I meant to say is that you shouldn't see much of a difference between 1.9-rc.0 and rc.1/rc.2 on a deployment without traffic (although 1.8.x is possible since it's a way older node version). I also have a test deployment with no traffic and don't see the same things as you between rc.0 and rc.2. So I'm trying to find an explanation for why you do see a difference. In understood you're saying you have CPU spikes in rc.1&2 you did not have in rc.0. But the rc.0 graphs show a 5 day time window, while the graph of rc.2 with the peaks is an 8-hour window. So I was pointing out that the spikes you see might have been there as well on rc.0 if you look in the same time range, since the graphs in kadira will not show the peaks over a large time range. |
This includes laverdet/node-fibers#429, fixing the CPU spikes reported and discussed here: #10527 (comment) Using an official fibers release rather than a GitHub URL is preferable because it doesn't require building fibers from source when deploying a Meteor app to production, and also doesn't rely on GitHub being operational, though of course it does rely on other networked services like npm.
912b26c
to
39cc074
Compare
@benjamn I have just updated to release-1.9. I am getting similar issues concerning node-fibers when deploying under CentOS 7. It seems to have been compiled with a more recent version of G++ with a more recent version of libstdc++.so.6 that is not supported under CentOS 7.
|
CentOS 7 and RHEL7 is also problematic for Meteor 1.8.2, Snap updates don't work properly: I don't know is it just that Meteor does not work well on CentOS 7 and RHEL7. |
@xet7 no I've been happily using CentOS 7 for all Meteor development since I first began using Meteor in 2015. This issue is simply because the binary was compiled with a too recent version of G++ that broke compatibility with older environments, e.g. the package maintainer may have accidentally built it under an up-to-date Linux distribution like Fedora or Ubuntu that has cutting edge versions of GNU tools. CentOS 7 is using GNU GCC 4.8.5 which was released in 2015. |
@vlasky When you run In the meantime, this seems like something you could potentially work around in your deployment environment, perhaps by deleting |
About building fibers:
I'm currently trying to figure out how to build Wekan Snap with correct dependencies to get Ubuntu 16.04-based Snap to have working MongoDB: Sure I have also many other wishes what to get working in Snap wekan/wekan-snap#103 (comment) I don't know could libssl.so.1 conflict on CentOS wekan/wekan-snap#117 |
So for CentOS 7, some equivalent of build-essential would need to be installed first. |
Before I added libcurl3, snap errors looked like this:
And at syslog:
|
I don't know is it possible to go directly from MongoDB 3.2.22 to 4.2.2 or would database need some conversion steps. |
Meteor 1.9 is now recommended 🎉 🎉 🎉 |
@benjamn I rebooted the server, did a clean install of meteor and then it started working normally.
|
Since Node.js 12 is scheduled to become the LTS version on October 1st, 2019, Meteor 1.9 will update the Node.js version used by Meteor from 8.16.1 (in Meteor 1.8.2) to 12.10.0 (the most recent current version).
If you would like to help test the latest prerelease version of Meteor 1.9, you can run the following command to create a fresh application:
The first casualty of this upgrade is that 32-bit Linux can no longer be supported. In fact, 32-bit Linux support was dropped in Node 10, so this is not exactly breaking news: nodejs/build#885