hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: Hadoop not working after replacing hadoop-core.jar with hadoop-core-append.jar
Date Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:32:49 GMT
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Mike Spreitzer <mspreitz@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> stack <saint.ack@gmail.com> wrote on 06/06/2011 10:57:50 PM:
>> From: stack <saint.ack@gmail.com>
> Let me see if I have got this straight.  Hadoop branch-0.20-append is not
> an immutable thing, it has evolved a little over time.


> The hadoop-core.jar that is included in the HBase distribution was built from
> some version of branch-0.20-append.  If my own Hadoop cluster is EXACTLY
> the same version of branch-0.20-append then I do not need to replace any
> files anywhere.  However, since nobody is telling me the version of
> branch-0.20-append from which HBase's hadoop-core.jar was built,

It says so in the jar name.  The jar is called >0.20-append-r1056497.
The latter is the svn revision we built the jar from.

>  I can not
> in any case or way be confident that my cluster is running EXACTLY the
> same version even if it is branch-0.20-append.

Not true.

> So the net result is that
> in all distributed cases (except when I import pre-built Hadoop+HBase from
> Cloudera or elsewhere) I have to build branch-0.20-append and copy it's
> core JAR into my HBase lib.  Have I got this right?  The book still does
> not say that clearly.  In fact, the book still points to my old email
> saying I did it the other way around.  Your reply above clearly seems to
> imply that I need to replace HBase's hadoop core JAR only in some
> distributed cases.  Yet the rest of the email conversation on this point
> seems to have settled that HBase's hadoop core JAR needs to be replaced in
> all distributed cases.

My reading of the text is that the jar should always be replaced.  I
added the callout that cited your old mail thread because I thought it
might be of interest.  It seems to have only made confusion so in the
edit I posted above (for review), I'd completely removed it.

The edit has not been pushed to the website.  I thought I'd get a bit
of input on it first.  Here is the link again:


View raw message