hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Hsieh <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: thinking about supporting upgrades to HBase 1.x and 2.x
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:10:12 GMT
We can go down the 1.x path to 1.1, 1.9,  all the way to 1.42.x and I'll
agree with you.

But some of the things being proposed could change not just the rpcs (which
the protobufs would help with) but the communications patterns as well
(which protobuf cannot help with).

Jon.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Suraj Varma <svarma.ng@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wasn't all the effort to go to end to end "protobuf messaging" meant to
> support rolling upgrades across major versions?
>
> Perhaps I may be missing the point, but for us post-Singularity release,
> the assumption was that all upgrades, major & minor, could be done
> "rolling" as proto bufs would ensure backward compatibility.
>
> This was a pretty important feature to allow us to upgrade live clusters
> without down times.
> --Suraj
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think we can or should guarantee a clean *rolling* upgrade from
> > hbase 1.0 to 2.0.  However, we absolutely should have a shutdown restart
> > 1.0 -> 2.0 upgrade.
> >
> > The whole point of a major version is to allow for api and compat
> breaking.
> >
> > There are a lot of things in flight that will likely make rolling upgrade
> > hard to do -- for example removing zk and some of the proposals for
> > consensus protocols that are trying to get in to 2.0 won't be compatible
> > with older clients.  Also, the deployment will likely be different due to
> > the combined master/meta options and some of the proposals for  having
> meta
> > splitting/sharded again will break a 1.0 client.
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bq. 1.0 to 2.0 we need to sure
> > >
> > > +1 on supporting rolling upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My opinion:
> > > >
> > > > If we have support for 0.98 to 1.00, support from 0.94 to 1.00 might
> be
> > > > pretty the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > After that, 2,0 might be far in the future. So 0.94 to 2.0 direct I'm
> > not
> > > > sure it's required. 1.0 to 2.0 we need to sure. People looking to
> > upgrade
> > > > from 0.94 to 2.0 might have to go to 1.0 first? I don't think it will
> > be
> > > a
> > > > big constraint. But still, it all depends on the effort of work
> > required
> > > to
> > > > implement upgrade from 0.94 to 2.0. If it's simple, let's to it.
> Else,
> > > > let's ask people to migrate to 1.0 first.
> > > >
> > > > Just my 2 ยข ;)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-08-29 14:19 GMT-04:00 Esteban Gutierrez <esteban@cloudera.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Per suggestion of Sean in HBASE-11860 I'm sending this to the list
> to
> > > > > discuss this idea:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been thinking that we should support upgrades from HBase
> > clusters
> > > > > running 0.94 to HBase 1.x initially. Do you guys concur that we
> > should
> > > > > support that upgrade path to HBase 1.x and depending the adoption
> of
> > > 1.x
> > > > > consider to extend or deprecate the same functionality in HBase
> 2.x?
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > esteban.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cloudera, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
> >
>



-- 
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh

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