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, 30 Jul 2014 20:39:19 GMT
Friendly reminder that direct upgrades from 1.4 to 1.6 is under review:

https://reviews.apache.org/r/23413/

Pending any additional concerns, I'll be pushing this soon.


On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> An initial port of the 1.4 -> 1.6 upgrade code for the current
> 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT branch is now up:
>
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2988
> * https://reviews.apache.org/r/23413/
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Cool. Thanks, Sean!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>



-- 
Sean

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