accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Should we support upgrading 1.4 -> 1.6 w/o going through 1.5?
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:25:23 GMT
I'll be creating a ticket and posting a patch this week.


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> So, just to revisit this conversation, it seems like there is interest in
> supporting this. Is there already a ticket for it and/or somebody
> interested in doing the necessary work for 1.6.1?
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > In a nutshell: stop 1.4, install 1.6, copy the WALs to HDFS
> > (ACCUMULO-2770), start 1.6
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Drew Farris <drew.farris@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > So works just like upgrading from 1.5?
> > >
> > > (After 1.4 shutdown, install 1.6 and restart?)
> > >
> > > That sounds entirely reasonable.
> > >
> > > Drew
> > > On Jun 17, 2014 10:52 PM, "Mike Drob" <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Sean

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