hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Rolling Upgrade 0.98 -> 1.1
Date Sun, 03 May 2015 01:07:10 GMT
A belated and perhaps unhelpful "I agree" from me.
Supporting rolling upgrades is in our own interest.If we want phase out older releases of
HBase (and reduce _our_ work supporting all those branches) we should give our users some
no-downtime, and hopefully painless way to upgrade.
0.94 is now 3 years old, and had 28 releases. In part that's because we do not have a good
upgrade path to later releases (and maybe also because it just worked well).I had fun doing
0.94, but I don't think we want to do that again. :)

-- Lars

      From: Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
 To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7:17 PM
 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rolling Upgrade 0.98 -> 1.1
   
Yeah, we need rolling upgrade from 0.98 to 1.1 I think. One issue related
to DLR was that, it needs a fix HBASE-11094 which is 0.98.4+ only otherwise
it is data loss. We have turned it off in 1.0, because explaining rolling
upgrades from 0.98.4- and 0.98.4+ was hard and there is no easy way to
enforce it.

See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12577

Enis



On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 for rolling upgrade from 0.98 to any 1.x for as long as we can manage
> it. Will make life easier for adopters of the 1.x line who come in later.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > We're pretty late in the game to bring this up, but I want to make sure
> > we're all on the same page. I believe we want to support rolling upgrades
> > as there have been blocker tickets opened against the release to this
> > effect. The two things I'm aware of that cause problems here are table
> > state in meta (HBASE-13017) and distributed log replay (HBASE-12577). Are
> > there any others we should be aware of? When I search for "Hadoop Flags:
> > Incompatible change" [0] I do get a couple hits, but I don't think this
> > flag is well socialized.
> >
> > Given the resolution outlined for table states, I'm prone to punt this
> one
> > to 1.2.
> >
> > For DLR, we have HBASE-12743 opened without clear progress. Devaraj also
> > mentioned to me that he's been tracking troubles around this feature his
> > test runs. Unless someone wants to crack this nut today or tomorrow, I
> > think we should toggle it off. HBASE-13584.
> >
> > Other items?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > [0]:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.1.0%20AND%20%22Hadoop%20Flags%22%20%3D%20%22Incompatible%20change%22
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>


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