hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "George P. Stathis" <gstat...@traackr.com>
Subject Re: Recommendation for migrating region server implementations
Date Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:58:19 GMT
Thanks Gary. Good to know.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi George,
>
> Looking at the IndexedTableDescriptor code on github
>
>
> https://github.com/hbase-trx/hbase-transactional-tableindexed/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/tableindexed/IndexedTableDescriptor.java
> )
>
> it seems to just store the serialized index definition to the
> HTableDescriptor's value map.  If you can live with the mucked up shell
> output for the table description (caused by doing Bytes.toString() on the
> index definition), then you should be good to go.
>
> --gh
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure.  If it came up -- 'seems to work' -- then it looks like
> > we just ignore the extra stuff (though, that seems a little odd... I'd
> > expect the deserializing of these 'exotic's to throw an exception).
> > Test more I'd say.  The shell you are using below is for sure from an
> > untarnished hbase -- there is no indexedhbase in the CLASSPATH?
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM, George P. Stathis <gstathis@traackr.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Ah, it seems to work, yes. I was thinking all along that it didn't
> > because I
> > > had setup a simple unit test that kept throwing this:
> > > java.io.IOException: Unknown protocol to name node:
> > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.IndexedRegionInterface
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.HRegionServer.getProtocolVersion(HRegionServer.java:2400)
> > > I had upgraded locally on top of my old 0.89 hbase.root and it seemed
> to
> > > work OK at first. Startup was clean and IRB shell was working. That
> unit
> > > test kept throwing me off though. Then, I remembered that we have a
> > custom
> > > hbase-site.xml for our maven unit tests that was still referencing the
> > > old IndexedRegionInterface. Removed that and problem solved.
> > > So, does this mean that we can use the existing table definitions
> as-is?
> > > They still contain old index definitions. E.g.
> > > hbase(main):022:0> describe 'monitors'
> > > DESCRIPTION
> > >                                                        ENABLED
> > >
> > >  {NAME => 'monitors', INDEXES =>
> > >
> 'fooattributes:foo=org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.tableindexed.IndexKeyGe
> > > true
> > >
> >
>  neratorEorg.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.tableindexed.RowBasedIndexKeyGeneratorattributes:fooorg.apache.hadoop.io.Writable
> > >
> > >
> >
>  0org.apache.hadoop.io.ObjectWritable$NullInstance'org.apache.hadoop.io.WritableComparable',
> > > FAMILIES => [{NAME => ...
> > > The INDEXES dictionary is still there. Could it create issues?
> > > -GS
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Do you have disk space to spare?  I'd think that all that is different
> > >> about indexed hbase is the WAL format.  If you had an hbase.rootdir
> > >> that was the product of a clean shutdown with no WALs to process, I'd
> > >> think you could just 0.90.x on top of it.  If you had the disk space
> > >> you could give it a go?
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, George P. Stathis
> > >> <gstathis@traackr.com> wrote:
> > >> > Hey folks,
> > >> >
> > >> > What would be the best approach for migrating away from a given
> region
> > >> > server implementation back to the default out-of-the box one? My
> goal
> > >> > here
> > >> > is to upgrade our cluster to 0.90 and migrate away from
> > >> > IndexedRegionServer
> > >> > back to the default HRegionServer.
> > >> >
> > >> > The only options that I know of at the moment are:
> > >> >
> > >> >   - Export/Import - pros: straightforward, cons: tedious, takes a
> long
> > >> > time
> > >> >   - org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.CopyTable - not sure about the
> > >> > pros
> > >> >   and cons here because I've never used it. It seems to require that
> > >> > tables
> > >> >   are moved to a different setup. Can it be used in place?
> > >> >
> > >> > If folks know of a different way to do this, please let me know.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you in advance for your time.
> > >> >
> > >> > -GS
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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