Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of busbey@cloudera.com
 designates 209.85.192.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+RK=_DKe3pu5RiDyUjJJ5apQ42RjZFc3y27UFWdpkXDSvzL+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALPvCiBXC+fMR5YscwFB4g6+5=XcvEDxApF553K-KPcYLjaFBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPQV63Vdf3r9b8CaKC=s6RRcOEVs-9-dxos0J8k3soudRcQuZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62zU6upkJyGX4iu74hXXLPK+YsNy9w8Abp=oNcx7xi2a1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a2VZJKYNZM0gxV-TZsiCKCRDu9YkDLAZJwt7CwvGzuiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN89x=wOxH3VkuF__+4jivGqYELqcBMXim_vz3_b6GmX=B1isg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a0FcGr=dAWsMUDy212Y0ZCUUnuzqvoBz7aNkDhwo_R7Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGngS9c=omZbbUp15tnf3qzEs3BQca1-fthYJNkj3y+sqdeCmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_DKe3pu5RiDyUjJJ5apQ42RjZFc3y27UFWdpkXDSvzL+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 16:52:39 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CAGHyZ6+un_+ekWpX8M+j3qHS6jbd5fZf5Ppj8R2Xyae09dxrbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: thinking about supporting upgrades to HBase 1.x and 2.x
To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a8bebcbdd7050943966a

--089e0141a8bebcbdd7050943966a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Resurrecting this thread to confirm our plans around upgrades to 2.0.

Early on there was mention of requiring an upgrade to 1.x (from prior to
1.0 release) before users can upgrade to 2.0.

At the moment I'm looking at fixing a problem in the NamespaceUpgrade code
that is only in 2.0. Since the code isn't actually needed for 1.0+
upgrades, I'd prefer to just rip it out.

I didn't see any opposition to this idea, but I just want to confirm. To be
clear, the actual tooling to use this upgrade code has already been
removed, so it would take work to get the upgrade path going again.


On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote=
:

> 0.98 was wire compatible with 0.96.
>
> I think we will can manage 1.0 as wire compatible with 0.98 as long as
> some new features remain off until the fleet is uniformly at 1.0.
>
> For 2.0 there are architectural changes being considered which make
> wire compatibility moot, I think this is what people are mostly
> talking about.
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Kevin O'dell <kevin.odell@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > I believe that Jon has it right.  Previously we had been treating 9x as
> > major upgrades and breaking compatibility between 90 -> 92 for example(=
I
> > know it is old).  Going forward from a supportability standpoint we
> should
> > guarantee rolling upgrades to 1.0, 1.1, 1.2...1.9.  Major version
> upgrades
> > should always reserve the right to break compatibility, this will give =
us
> > the ability to make more drastic HFile version changes, RPC changes, et=
c.
> >  That is not to say we should make all major version upgrades painful,
> but
> > the guarantee should not be mandatory.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 fo=
r
> >> > > 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 wor=
k
> >> > > required
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > implement upgrade from 0.94 to 2.0. If it's simple, let's to i=
t.
> >> > Else,
> >> > > > > let's ask people to migrate to 1.0 first.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Just my 2 =C2=A2 ;)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 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 th=
e
> >> list
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > discuss this idea:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I've been thinking that we should support upgrades from HBas=
e
> >> > > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin O'Dell
> > Systems Engineer, Cloudera
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein (via Tom White)
>


--=20
Sean

--089e0141a8bebcbdd7050943966a--