hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From tsuna <tsuna...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: hbase 0.94.0
Date Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:20:42 GMT
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Nicolas Spiegelberg
<nspiegelberg@fb.com> wrote:
> I'm advocating that RPC compatibility breakage is not acceptable for FB
> because this is a vital and highly-deployed infrastructure piece.  I'm
> assuming this strategy may not be acceptable for other major contributors
> as well.  I can't imagine that CDH customers don't need cross-version
> compat, which will most likely go from 92->96+.  I think we need to have a
> client->server online migration strategy for currently active revisions.

If you build your apps with asynchbase, not only you'll get better
performance out of HBase, but also you won't have these annoying
problems of RPC compatibility :)

> This is independent of whether we label the current build 1.0 or not.  In
> fact, I would advocate that we want to be in the habit of cross-version
> compatibility and long-term thinking before we actually release a 1.0.
> With 1.0, we don't just want to have cross-version compat, we want to have
> the problem nailed or else it will cause major support problems.
> Note that I'm not advocating cross-service RPC compat at this time.  I
> don't think we need to tackle online rolling upgrades of HBase from 92->94
> (e.g. Mixed RegionServer versions or mixed master-RS).  Doing a start-stop
> of the entire HBase cluster is probably fine before 1.0.  However, I think
> it's safe to say that there are multiple instances where the DBA team and
> the AppServer team are different people, especially with any group
> exploring multi-tenancy.  For that use case, client & server compat is
> critical.


Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure
Software Engineer @ www.StumbleUpon.com

View raw message