Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of joey@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.128.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJRvFdpG9bEZ4wsBT-kz_H7zEV_W17KK9vtcJxJXEfjKUHmxxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <939777510.1776000.1374867252656.JavaMail.root@sz0053a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
	<1375118610198.faad686c@Nodemailer>
	<00a101ce8f0f$80884a20$8198de60$@comcast.net>
	<CAEGKEUMW5OpX6YHdFNcfBEgvrUaG6WOoRnYSN3pk5E_ZtPsA2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5zq9Z=URf9QHf3U-FjuXmjQ0gtAsCDmDxOv8bViaFH1gDxxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEGKEUPWBM1ukFvDYnh8nGCuWG3eijP2JkGDXePKjCPe8y-ARQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJRvFdpG9bEZ4wsBT-kz_H7zEV_W17KK9vtcJxJXEfjKUHmxxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:03:35 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAEGKEUM6PDZeA6he626Pir-pwdPDqhA_xMj8_aCK4wTiuUFrZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
From: Joey Echeverria <joey@cloudera.com>
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Vanilla.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Mike Drob <mdrob@mdrob.com> wrote:
> Which version of 0.20 are you testing against? Vanilla, or cdh3 flavored?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Joey Echeverria <joey@cloudera.com> wrote=
:
>
>> I don't think that's a good idea unless you can come up with very
>> clear version number change.
>>
>> -Joey
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Would it be reasonable to consider a version of 1.4 that breaks
>> > compatibility with 0.20? I'm not really a fan of this, personally, but
>> > am curious what others think.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Joey Echeverria <joey@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Sorry for the delay, it's been one of those weeks.
>> >>
>> >> The current version would probably not be backwards compatible to
>> >> 0.20.2 just based on changes in dependencies. We're looking right now
>> >> to see how hard it is to have three way compatibility (0.20, 1.0,
>> >> 2.0).
>> >>
>> >> -Joey
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dave Marion <dlmarion@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Any update?
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Joey Echeverria [mailto:joey@cloudera.com]
>> >>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM
>> >>> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
>> >>>
>> >>> We're testing this today. I'll report back what we find.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -Joey
>> >>> =97
>> >>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM, null <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Will 1.4 still work with 0.20 with these patches?"
>> >>>> Great point Billie.
>> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> From: "Billie Rinaldi" <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>
>> >>>> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
>> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:02:41 PM
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch On Fri, Jul
>> >>>> 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Joey Echeverria <joey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> > If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I
>> >>>>> > would
>> >>>>> like
>> >>>>> > to see the following test run using CDH4 on at least a 5 node
>> cluster.
>> >>>>> >  More nodes would be better.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >   * unit test
>> >>>>> >   * Functional test
>> >>>>> >   * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification
>> >>>>> >   * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification + agitation
>> >>>>> >   * 24 hr Random walk
>> >>>>> >   * 24 hr Random walk + agitation
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > I may be able to assist with this, but I can not make any promis=
es.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sure thing. Is there already a write-up on running this full batte=
ry
>> >>>>> of tests? I have a 10 node cluster that I can use for this.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > Great.  I think this would be a good patch for 1.4.   I assume t=
hat
>> >>>>> > if a user stays with Hadoop 1 there are no dependency changes?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yup. It works the same way as 1.5 where all of the dependency chan=
ges
>> >>>>> are in a Hadoop 2.0 profile.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> In 1.5.0, we gave up on compatibility with 0.20 (and early versions=
 of
>> >>>> 1.0) to make the compatibility requirements simpler; we ended up
>> >>>> without dependency changes in the hadoop version profiles.  Will 1.=
4
>> >>>> still work with 0.20 with these patches?  If there are dependency
>> >>>> changes in the profiles, 1.4 would have to be compiled against a
>> >>>> hadoop version compatible with the running version of hadoop, corre=
ct?
>> >>>> We had some trouble in the
>> >>>> 1.5 release process with figuring out how to provide multiple binar=
y
>> >>>> artifacts (each compiled against a different version of hadoop) for
>> >>>> the same release.  Just something we should consider before we are =
in
>> >>>> the midst of releasing 1.4.4.
>> >>>> Billie
>> >>>>> -Joey
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Joey Echeverria
>> >> Director, Federal FTS
>> >> Cloudera, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joey Echeverria
>> Director, Federal FTS
>> Cloudera, Inc.
>>


--=20
Joey Echeverria
Director, Federal FTS
Cloudera, Inc.