hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
Date Fri, 13 Nov 2015 20:03:44 GMT
FWIW, we're also running a version of 2.6* with 0.98 for a while now and
it's stable.

* - We patched in HDFS level infinite timeout fixes (like HDFS-7005) and
the fix for HBase corruption when using at-rest encryption, and these are
in 2.6.1+.


On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:

> We've been running a version of 2.6.X for a while and it's been quite
> stable for us. I would be +1 for supporting 2.6.1+
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I've verified compilation at least of 1.1.x on 2.6 releases. I'm fine
> with
> > upgrading "X" to "NT" for this combination.
> >
> > While we're in there, we should also clarify the meaning of "Not
> Supported"
> > vs "Not Tested". It seems we don't say what we mean by these
> distinctions.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Heya folks,
> > >
> > > In response to our push the Hadoop community has been making patch
> > releases
> > > on the 2.6 and 2.7 line. So far on 2.6 they've gotten out 2, with the
> > first
> > > containing fixes for all of the critical issues that led to us marking
> > > 2.6.0 as a no-no[1].
> > >
> > > Any opposition to adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+
> line?
> > > Thoughts on which versions of HBase it should apply to?
> > >
> > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
>



-- 
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