Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=O+F+ehd8rANPL4OWNuNiSrhiN9TVRro+0Pbx96DKBTcby5fOTQaHsiNhTa9jpvO83WFes+Qz+7uKZz4jfpjPC2x05SRVU2k7fnhJFz0wb+3ZbVOhSchxRsCp+USVkdW/uONyvlTnHq3Us/6d0/pHzb80TNBBs4mAVvyAUwvEBDo=;
References: 
 <CADcMMgFHWyYkZx_bB=pOStqPbBaDJd1FYVKaHGSY3fTigmzu2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1327606127.90568.YahooMailNeo@web164512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <1327606872.90091.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOKsKJXoKt4Z+nAxEE-06K5=dqZY13K_CLeyjSTPMxy4KyLPZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1327608979.84453.YahooMailNeo@web121702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <203EEA10-0B66-4513-835D-21C8B2D6BFB7@gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a08zMoa_fLJGMbqAtfZ5p=aZ5Wnt_+QzRgb6YUUTwaemQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1327625630.53849.YahooMailNeo@web121706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOKsKJWZ6tzQwR-=SR14JW4gRMZg2F6F2+zhvqbn6Q5iZWHsmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1327627811.77833.YahooMailNeo@web121705.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <CAGpTDNfHvcWk_Uruk_OEbmZx3RgUBjoWLUS4qAHopDGDjqUwZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1327638287.62005.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <CADcMMgFLw4wSY7FM7mG25iVsBHqUxFA3VTahZODhz_qhu2dtaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADY20s55WQ8yrUXUe62XuLLeNMc_GK0bsy10P1_psFjMZ8V5Gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgF7_nK+YTUZqd6xvK2q=yig7faJpy0o7LSGOvnf_P9ruA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1327684602
 .30746.YahooMailNeo@web121704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <CAAha9a2UTUu0D2xM85VXWkcXu6abvBFvtiRh3oC8iVpXdaFqcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1327690475.46115.YahooMailNeo@web121702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOKsKJXH+KmZZT20QPXQ8cKyYZ11Dd3WipWgF1YsMWx089eojQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1327696598.90564.YahooMailNeo@web121706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:36:38 -0800 (PST)
From: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Cc: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOKsKJXH+KmZZT20QPXQ8cKyYZ11Dd3WipWgF1YsMWx089eojQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks would be awesome! Let's do that in 0.96. :)=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Origina=
l Message -----=0AFrom: Matt Corgan <mcorgan@hotpads.com>=0ATo: lars hofhan=
sl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>; dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>=0ACc: Jonathan Hsieh <=
jon@cloudera.com>=0ASent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:06 PM=0ASubject: Re: =
hbase 0.94.0=0A=0AThe reason I brought it up is now that Mikhail committed =
the data block=0Aencoding I was going to take a stab at adding the prefix t=
rie encoding I=0Awas working on this past summer.=A0 My plan is to first ma=
ke a minimally=0Ainvasive patch to prove correctness.=A0 But, after that th=
ere will probably=0Abe some big performance gains to be had from reworking =
some of the things=0Alike KeyValueScanner which I would not have the courag=
e to get working with=0Av1.=0A=0ASo, that was why I asked, but all of that =
is still more hypothetical than=0Areal, and I don't even know if the first =
part will be done before branching=0A.94 at the end of February.=A0 Makes s=
ense to me to not delete v1 until=0Athere's a good reason to, which it does=
n't look like we have yet.=A0 If I get=0Ato the point where v1 is halting p=
rogress then we can reevaluate based on=0Amore specific issues.=A0 Maybe no=
ne of the prefix trie will even make .94...=0A=0A..sent from my phone=0AOn =
Jan 27, 2012 1:55 PM, "lars hofhansl" <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:=0A=0A> H=
ey Jon,=0A>=0A> understood. Makes 0.94 hard, though. If we decide now to ha=
ve a 0.90 to=0A> 0.94 upgrade path and then timing does not work out and no=
body signs up for=0A> the testing because it 0.92 is more convenient we'd h=
ave gone through this=0A> for nothing.=0A>=0A> So... Thinking about this mo=
re I am -1 on supporting an official upgrade=0A> path other then from one r=
elease to the next.=0A> That said, we do not have to break things intention=
ally.=0A>=0A>=0A> I'm fine pushing HBASE-2600 and HFile v1 removal out of 0=
.94... As long as=0A> we won't havethe same argument for 0.96 :)=0A> And I =
am not aware of any file compatibility issues.=0A>=0A>=0A> We can also leav=
e the 0.92 migration code in, but not officially support=0A> it as 0.90 to =
0.94 path.=0A> Then CDH4 can make sure (if needed) that it is all working.=
=0A>=0A>=0A> Does that work for you guys?=0A>=0A> -- Lars=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> _=
_______________________________=0A>=A0 From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.c=
om>=0A> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>=0A> S=
ent: Friday, January 27, 2012 10:10 AM=0A> Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0=0A>=0A=
>=0A> Lars,=0A>=0A> The upcoming CDH4 Beta HBase will be based on the lates=
t hotness, 0.92.0.=0A> A CDH4 GA HBase will have to have an upgrade path fr=
om CDH3 HBase. If that=0A> HBase is 0.92 based, we'll test that, and if tim=
ing works out and we decide=0A> 0.94, we'll have to have a path (0.90->0.94=
) for than and will test that.=0A>=0A> HBASE-2600 is a big change of encodi=
ng of meta, while my understanding is=0A> that 0.90->0,92 is a graceful HFi=
le format conversion.=A0 Are there are=0A> things currently in trunk that f=
urther break compatiblity of the file=0A> format? (what jiras?)=0A>=0A> Jon=
.=0A>=0A>=0A> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:16 AM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yah=
oo.com>=0A> wrote:=0A>=0A> Not removing code for upgrade is fine.=0A> >=0A>=
 >Todd, is Cloudera signing up for testing this path (0.90 to 0.94)?=0A> >=
=0A> >=0A> >Stack, what's your feeling w.r.t. to HBASE-2600, will keeping t=
he 0.90 ->=0A> 0.92 migration path=0A> >make the migration code for HBASE-2=
600 (much) more complicated in 0.94?=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >-- Lars=0A> >=0A> >=
=0A> >=0A> >----- Original Message -----=0A> >From: Stack <stack@duboce.net=
>=0A> >To: dev@hbase.apache.org=0A> >Cc:=0A> >Sent: Friday, January 27, 201=
2 9:02 AM=0A> >Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >On Fri, Jan 27, 2=
012 at 8:42 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:=0A> >> In this particular c=
ase, there was no explicit migration step needed=0A> >> going 0.90 to 0.92.=
=A0 Upgrading from 0.90 to 0.94 should just be=0A> >> running the 0.92 to 0=
.94 migration script (if there is one).=0A> >>=0A> >=0A> >Thinking more, th=
e above only really holds if we keep the .META.=0A> >migration code that ru=
ns in 0.92 on startup on into 0.94 (I have a=0A> >patch here where I'm remo=
ving it... I should put this bit of code=0A> >back).=0A> >=0A> >I see Todd =
that you vote against removing hfile v1 in 0.94.=A0 To make=0A> >going from=
 CDH3 to CDH4, we should not purge any migrating code or old=0A> >version s=
upport.=0A> >=0A> >I'd be fine w/ that.=A0 We'll need to work hard to ensur=
e it taking it=0A> >on as a principal for 0.94.=A0 Ok w/ you "Iron Hand" La=
rs?=0A> >=0A> >St.Ack=0A> >=0A> >=0A>=0A>=0A> --=0A> // Jonathan Hsieh (sha=
y)=0A> // Software Engineer, Cloudera=0A>=0A> // jon@cloudera.com=0A