hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: DISCUSS: Have hbase require at least hadoop 1.0.0 in hbase 0.96.0?
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:10:25 GMT
The UserGroupInformation API is incompatible between secure and nonsecure versions **of Hadoop**
(among other issues). This leads to two issues:

  - Runtime exceptions. We indeed do use reflection to do run time detection of which variant
is available.

  - Compile time errors. We can't do anything about this. Hence the separate profile.


And just FYI security has two components: the totally optional coprocessor-based access controller,
and the secure RPC engine as a plug in option. If you don't enable either you won't see any
runtime errors; however we can't easily build a single artifact because the secure RPC engine,
as it interacts with the Hadoop auth framework, must use UserGroupInformation.


Best regards,


    - Andy


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



>________________________________
> From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
>To: dev@hbase.apache.org 
>Sent: Monday, March 5, 2012 11:59 PM
>Subject: Re: DISCUSS: Have hbase require at least hadoop 1.0.0 in hbase 0.96.0?
> 
>On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Nicolas Spiegelberg
><nspiegelberg@fb.com> wrote:
>> I'm wondering why HDFS security support should be mandatory?  Append makes
>> sense because there's no way to have a durable system without it.
>> Security is currently an optional feature & implemented as an HBase
>> co-processor (vs core), correct?  Is there a problem (other than minor
>> inconvenience) with using introspection APIs for security in the core and
>> then warning if security is enabled but the API is unreachable?
>>
>
>We could try and do that.
>
>The proposal is about pulling up the bottom end on the hadoop's we
>will run on going forward.  If all hadoop's from 1.0.0 on have
>security, and we can depend on that being the case going forward, then
>we could do things like ship a single artifact rather than the two we
>currently ship; one that does not depend on a secure hadoop and
>another that requires it.
>
>I forgot that 0.22 hadoop doesn't have security.  Would suggest that
>we drop support for it too in 0.96 hbase.
>
>St.Ack
>
>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message