hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What we expect in upgrades to HBase 2.0.0
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2017 01:24:32 GMT
Is there anything in 1.4* not in 1.2 that would warrant that? Otherwise I agree, not requiring
an intermediate upgrade step would be best. Requiring a double upgrade would be super operator
unfriendly.

* - Should everything go reasonably well we will have a 1.4.0 release before December. I'm
going to do the first RC next week. 


> On Oct 28, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, looks like there is some enough feelings that we don't need to worry
> about downgrades.
> 
> What about the other part of Sean's question? Do we need to support rolling
> upgrades to 2.0 from any 1.x, or is it fair game to require a specific
> minimum version?
> 
> If we felt that it simplified things, I'd even be happy with a minimum
> 1.4->2.0 upgrade path, but 1.4 doesn't exist yet and I don't feel like
> that's something we can dictate to users. Maybe it's ok to set the minimum
> line at 1.2? If we end up moving the stable pointer, that makes for a
> stronger argument for a newer minimum version.
> 
> Mike
> 
>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> +1 -- well put, Andrew.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10/28/17 1:17 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would not like to see downgrades as a goal. This would be new. We've
>>> not done it before. Laudible goal, but we are clearly stretched already.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 28, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> If downgrades are a later goal, does that mean somebody could go from
>>>> some
>>>> 1.x to 2.0 to 2.y then back to 1.x?
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd like to make downgrades a non-goal. I'd love us to support
>>>>> downgrades eventually, but that's a feature in its own right and I
>>>>> don't think we have time to get it done and still have a 2.0.0 GA in
a
>>>>> reasonable time frame.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> A recent JIRA about our hfile format[1] has got me thinking about
>>>>>> expectations for upgrading. The specifics of that JIRA aren't terribly
>>>>>> important; it's the general issue I want to talk about. A
>>>>>> simplification of the mismatch in expectations between two groups
is
>>>>>> that some folks place the bar for "we support rolling upgrade" at
>>>>>> rolling upgrade from 1.y.z* versions generally and others are
>>>>>> comfortable requiring an initial upgrade to some later 1.y.z version
>>>>>> first.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Have we documented what our goals are for upgrades this major release?
>>>>>> Do we know what we have to do to get there? I've seen a few one-off
>>>>>> JIRAs to fix particular problems, but not really a plan.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We should discuss here a bit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When things have some consensus is anyone willing to take point on
>>>>>> writing up the results in a scope document of sorts? I have a few
good
>>>>>> examples to point you to, though they're all for features.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19052
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 

Mime
View raw message