accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Should we support upgrading 1.4 -> 1.6 w/o going through 1.5?
Date Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:51:34 GMT
We initially tried to set it up as a stand-alone utility but eventually
gave up. In order to properly do the upgrade, you concurrently need to run
whatever upgrade code concurrently with a tablet server hosting !METADATA
and a tablet server that can replay WALs. We ended up duplicating a lot of
logic already present in master before scrapping that plan. An alternative
would have been to try to build on MAC, but that was also non-trivial to
deploy, so we spliced the code into the existing upgrade path. How do you
feel about that, Drew?


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Drew Farris <drew.farris@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm +1 for a utility that would allow us to go directly from 1.4 to 1.6.
>
> In terms of a general policy, I suggest we make this sort of decision on a
> case by case basis. My unreasonably self-centered intuition suggests that
> there may be some folks that want to go from 1.4 to 1.6 now due to a
> relatively short 1.5 cycle. The need to jump multiple versions like might
> not exist in the future.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > In an effort to get more users off of our now unsupported 1.4 release,
> > should we support upgrading directly to 1.6 without going through a 1.5
> > upgrade?
> >
> > More directly for those on user@: would you be more likely to upgrade
> off
> > of 1.4 if you could do so directly to 1.6?
> >
> > We have this working locally at Cloudera as a part of our CDH integration
> > (we shipped 1.4 and we're planning to ship 1.6 next).
> >
> > We can get into implementation details on a jira if there's positive
> > consensus, but the changes weren't very complicated. They're mostly
> >
> > * forward porting and consolidating some upgrade code
> > * additions to the README for instructions
> >
> > Personally, I can see the both sides of the argument. On the plus side,
> > anything to get more users off of 1.4 is a good thing. On the negative
> > side, it means we have the 1.4 related upgrade code sitting in a
> supported
> > code branch longer.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message