hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: hbase 0.94.0
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:25:26 GMT
> I fear it will be close to impossible to have an upgrade path from any version of HBase to
every future version.
> [...]
> If we only support upgrade from one version to the next we can make sure that it is
rock solid and think through all the corner cases. 

+1

Best regards,

     - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) 


----- Original Message -----
> From: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0
> 
> I fear it will be close to impossible to have an upgrade path from any version 
> of HBase to every future version.
> At some point we have to make the cut, or the code will littered with old cruft 
> and upgrade logic, not even to speak of the testing overhead
> to verify that all old versions can be upgraded to the latest one.
> 
> 
> If we only support upgrade from one version to the next we can make sure that it 
> is rock solid and think through all the corner cases.
> 
> And then we can stop maintaining old code and focus on fixing bugs and adding 
> features.
> 
> 
> I like Matt's idea being able to check that all HFiles did in fact upgrade 
> to V2 (that falls into the "rock solid" part).
> And maybe that means it is too late to remove HFileV1 in 0.94.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0
> 
> +1 to having some sort of migration mechanism especially for the files
> side. I say this out of personal interest -- I'm fairly certain that at
> some point I'm going to have to support these upgrades.
> 
> Jon.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Yates 
> <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>>  +1 on removing it too, but maybe we should have some sort of upgrade
>>  script to help make the switch?
>> 
>>  I'm thinking something pluggable on both sides of the upgrade, so 
> people
>>  can go from version X->Y, rather than having to upgrade first to an
>>  intermediate and then to he version they want (right it would be going from
>>  0.20->.92->.96, IMO an excessive PITA).
>> 
>>  Just my two cents...
>> 
>>  - Jesse Yates
>> 
>>  Sent from my iPhone.
>> 
>>  On Jan 26, 2012, at 12:16 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  > Good point.
>>  > 0.94 is not branched, yet. And I think generally we do not support
>>  skipping releases for upgrades.
>>  > +1 on removing HFileV1 cruft for 0.94
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > -- Lars
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > ________________________________
>>  > From: Matt Corgan <mcorgan@hotpads.com>
>>  > To: dev@hbase.apache.org; Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>>  > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:51 AM
>>  > Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0
>>  >
>>  > Are there any thoughts about when it is ok to stop being backwards
>>  > compatible?  Mainly thinking of HFileV1... 0.92 will convert all
>>  HFileV1's
>>  > to HFileV2's, so it would probably have been ok to delete the code 
> for
>>  > HFileV1 in 0.94 and force people to upgrade through 0.92.  That 
> didn't
>>  > actually happen, so it's looking like folks will be able to go 
> straight
>>  > from 0.90 to 0.94.  But, perhaps it should be deleted for 0.96?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> <apurtell@apache.org
>>  >wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> Yeah, so
>>  >>
>>  >>     - Security (basically another coprocessor for inclusion in 
> mainline,
>>  >> like Constraints)
>>  >>
>>  >> if not in 0.92.1.
>>  >>
>>  >> Best regards,
>>  >>
>>  >>      - Andy
>>  >>
>>  >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - 
> Piet Hein
>>  >> (via Tom White)
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>> ________________________________
>>  >>> From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>>  >>> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" 
> <dev@hbase.apache.org>
>>  >>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:28 AM
>>  >>> Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0
>>  >>>
>>  >>> A limited set of changes so we can get it out on that kind of
>>  timeframe.
>>  >> :-)
>>  >>>
>>  >>>   - Constraints (is ready to go, is a coprocessor, so is in 
> the large
>>  >> just a new package to drop in)
>>  >>>
>>  >>>   - Useful utilities for ops:
>>  >>>
>>  >>>      - LoadTestTool (if Ted didn't end up backporting this 
> into 0.92)
>>  >>>
>>  >>>      - The store file locality thing I have mostly done, will

> finish it
>>  >>>
>>  >>>   - Mikhail and crew's ongoing optimizations (HBASE-4218, 
> etc.), the
>>  ones
>>  >> he considers fully baked
>>  >>>
>>  >>> I saw wire compatibility mentioned, for 0.96 but perhaps
>>  >> optional/transitional code in 0.94 as well. This is something we 
> would
>>  try
>>  >> out and beat up upon in staging in earnest.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Best regards,
>>  >>>
>>  >>>     - Andy
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - 
> Piet
>>  Hein
>>  >> (via Tom White)
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>> ________________________________
>>  >>>> From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
>>  >>>> To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org>
>>  >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:34 PM
>>  >>>> Subject: hbase 0.94.0
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Lets branch end of february?  No new features thereafter. 

> Is this too
>>  >>>> close in?  Would be grand if 0.94.0 shipped before 
> hbasecon.  What
>>  >>>> should 0.94.0 have in it?  I don't mind if the list is 
> short.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Unless someone else wants too, I don't mind being 
> release manager
>>  >>>> (will try to run a tighter ship this time around).
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> St.Ack
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>  

Mime
View raw message