accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Planning for (eventual) removal of instance.dfs.{uri,dir}
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:03:56 GMT
Well, no, the database will start if we rely on instance.volumes, but we
may be unable to find files that have relative paths, if we incorrectly
assume /accumulo. Making it required is annoying if users don't have
relative paths.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:15 AM, <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:

> How so? If someone upgrades from another version and is using a different
> dir, doesn't specify it in the configuration, and we assume /accumulo, then
> their database won't start. The other option, which may be safer than
> making any assumptions, is to make instance.volumes a required parameter
> with no defaults.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> To: "Accumulo Dev List" <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:51:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Planning for (eventual) removal of instance.dfs.{uri,dir}
>
> The URI is probably reasonable, but the dir is potentially problematic if
> you weren't using the default.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, dlmarion <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Looks like VolumeConfiguration falls back to fs.defaultFS for the uri and
> > /accumulo for the dir. You could remove both properties and still keep
> this
> > as the documented default behavior if instance.volumes is not specified.
> >
> >
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christopher
<
> > ctubbsii@apache.org> </div><div>Date:12/10/2014 9:13 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > </div><div>To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: Planning for (eventual)
removal of
> > instance.dfs.{uri,dir} </div><div>
> > </div>My ACCUMULO-2589 branch in github (
> > https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/tree/ACCUMULO-2589) does have a
> > commit
> > that drops a bunch of stuff (which may or may not be accepted as is for
> > 2.0). The instance.dfs.{uri,dir} properties aren't so easy and require
> more
> > planning, because it's not just removing a property... it's also dealing
> > with updating internal data by making relative paths absolute.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I'm also looking at what changes if we drop Hadoop 1
> > support.
> >
> > As for the validation of config, I think we do a sanity check on startup
> > already, which we can always extend. Doesn't solve this issue, though.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM, dlmarion <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > We should schedule a bunch of deprecated things for removal in 2.0 to
> > ease
> > > maintenance. Do we have a way to validate the site.xml and zookeeper
> > > settings before startup and fail with appropriate error message.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christopher
<
> > > ctubbsii@apache.org> </div><div>Date:12/10/2014 8:44 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > > </div><div>To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Planning for (eventual)
removal of
> > > instance.dfs.{uri,dir} </div><div>
> > > </div>So,
> > >
> > > instance.volumes replaces instance.dfs.uri and instance.dfs.dir in 1.6.
> > > But, what's our long-term plan for these? I ask, because we still have
> > > internal code that uses instance.dfs.uri to resolve relative paths.
> > >
> > > Should we force these to be re-written at some point (maybe on upgrade
> to
> > > 1.7)? Should we continue to support the deprecated properties
> > indefinitely
> > > and continue the lazy re-write-on-compact? Do we transition by
> requiring
> > > instance.volumes to specify the volumes, and only use the old
> properties
> > to
> > > resolve relative paths?
> > >
> > > My personal view is that we should provide an upgrade-prep/check tool
> > prior
> > > to upgrade to 2.0, which checks and/or re-writes paths and verifies
> that
> > > instance.volumes is set.
> > >
> > > Does anybody have a different opinion on this?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> >
>
>

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