hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 0.94 going forward
Date Tue, 16 Dec 2014 01:52:30 GMT
Nope :(Replication uses RPC and that was changed to protobufs. AFAIK snapshots can also not
be exported from 0.94 and 0.98. We have a really shitty story here.      From: Sean Busbey
<busbey@cloudera.com>
 To: user <user@hbase.apache.org> 
 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:04 PM
 Subject: Re: 0.94 going forward
   
Does replication and snapshot export work from 0.94.6+ to a 0.96 or 0.98
cluster?

Presuming it does, shouldn't a site be able to use a multiple cluster set
up to do a cut over of a client application?

That doesn't help with needing downtime for to do the eventual upgrade, but
it mitigates the impact on the downstream app.

-- 
Sean


On Dec 15, 2014 6:51 PM, "Jeremy Carroll" <phobos182@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which is why I feel that a lot of customers are still on 0.94. Pretty much
> trapped unless you want to take downtime for your site. Any type of
> guidance would be helpful. We are currently in the process of designing our
> own system to deal with this.
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Zero downtime upgrade from 0.94 won't be possible. See
> > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e5199
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Jeremy Carroll <phobos182@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking for guidance on how to do a zero downtime upgrade from 0.94 ->
> > 0.98
> > > (or 1.0 if it launches soon). As soon as we can figure this out, we
> will
> > > migrate over.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Esteban Gutierrez <
> esteban@cloudera.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Lars,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bringing this for discussion. From my experience I can
> tell
> > > that
> > > > 0.94 is very stable but that shouldn't be a blocker to consider to
> > > EOL'ing.
> > > > Are you considering any specific timeframe for that?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > esteban.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cloudera, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Koert Kuipers <koert@tresata.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > given that CDH4 is hbase 0.94 i dont believe nobody is using it.
> for
> > > our
> > > > > clients the majority is on 0.94 (versus 0.96 and up).
> > > > >
> > > > > so i am going with 1), its very stable!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the past few months the rate of the change into 0.94 has
> > slowed
> > > > > > significantly.
> > > > > > 0.94.25 was released on Nov 15th, and since then we had only
4
> > > changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This could mean two things: (1) 0.94 is very stable now or (2)
> > nobody
> > > > is
> > > > > > using it (at least nobody is contributing to it anymore).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anybody out there is still using 0.94 and is not planning
to
> > > upgrade
> > > > > to
> > > > > > 0.98 or later soon (which will required downtime), please speak
> up.
> > > > > > Otherwise it might be time to think about EOL'ing 0.94.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not actually much work to do these releases, especially
when
> > > they
> > > > > are
> > > > > > so small, but I'd like to continue only if they are actually
> used.
> > > > > > In any case, I am going to spin 0.94.26 with the current 4 fixes
> > > today
> > > > or
> > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Lars
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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