hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raghava Mutharaju <m.vijayaragh...@gmail.com>
Subject Fwd: HDFS-630 patch for Hadoop v0.20
Date Fri, 14 May 2010 06:59:03 GMT
(forwarding this email from common-user mailing list)

Hi all,

      I will briefly describe the problem again. In the installation
requirements page of HBase -
http://hadoop.apache.org/hbase/docs/current/api/overview-summary.html#requirements,
it is given that we should apply patch HDFS-630. It is also mentioned that
this HBase version is only for Hadoop 0.20.x. But the latest patch of
HDFS-630 is for Hadoop 0.21. There is a patch for Cloudera's version of
Hadoop 0.20 but not for Apache Hadoop 0.20.x. How can I get around this
problem of finding the right patch?

Thank you.

Regards,
Raghava.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Raghava Mutharaju <m.vijayaraghava@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: HDFS-630 patch for Hadoop v0.20
To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org


oops, sorry, by really required I meant, would that problem arise only in
any special situations or is it required for normal operations also.

Regards,
Raghava.


On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Raghava Mutharaju <
m.vijayaraghava@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Todd,
>
> Oh, then isn't it a bit contradictory to the instructions on HBase overview
> page.
>
>
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/hbase/docs/current/api/overview-summary.html#requirements
>
> It says that the current version of HBase works only with 0.20.X and asks
> users to apply the patch HDFS-630 but that patch is not available for
> 0.20.X. Is there any work around for this? Is that patch really required?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Raghava.
>
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Raghava Mutharaju <
>> m.vijayaraghava@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Todd,
>> >
>> >        Thank you for the reply. In the cluster I use here, apache Hadoop
>> is
>> > installed. So I have to use that. I am trying out HBase on my laptop
>> first.
>> > Even though I install CDH2, it won't be useful because on the cluster, I
>> > have to work with apache Hadoop. Since version 0.21 is still in
>> > development,
>> > there should be a HDFS-630 patch for the current stable release of
>> Hadoop
>> > isn't it?
>> >
>>
>> No, it was not considered for release in Hadoop 0.20.X because it breaks
>> wire compatibility, and though I've done a workaround to avoid issues
>> stemming from that, it would be unlikely to pass a backport vote.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Raghava,
>> > >
>> > > Yes, that's a patch targeted at 0.20, but I'm not certain whether it
>> > > applies
>> > > on the vanilla 0.20 code or not. If you'd like a version of Hadoop
>> that
>> > > already has it applied and tested, I'd recommend using Cloudera's
>> CDH2.
>> > >
>> > > -Todd
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Raghava Mutharaju <
>> > > m.vijayaraghava@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello all,
>> > > >
>> > > >     I am trying to install HBase and while going through the
>> > requirements
>> > > > (link below), it asked me to apply HDFS-630 patch. The latest 2
>> patches
>> > > are
>> > > > for Hadoop 0.21. I am using version 0.20. For this version, should
I
>> > > apply
>> > > > Todd Lipcon's patch at
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12430230/hdfs-630-0.20.txt
>> > > > .
>> > > > Would this be the right patch to apply? The directory structures
>> have
>> > > > changed from 0.20 to 0.21.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/hbase/docs/current/api/overview-summary.html#requirements
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > Raghava.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Todd Lipcon
>> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>
>
>

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