Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-accumulo-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-accumulo-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA937953B for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45577 invoked by uid 500); 22 Mar 2012 20:59:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-accumulo-user-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45550 invoked by uid 500); 22 Mar 2012 20:59:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact accumulo-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45542 invoked by uid 99); 22 Mar 2012 20:59:46 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:59:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tejay.e.cardon@lmco.com designates 192.31.106.12 as permitted sender) Received: from [192.31.106.12] (HELO mailfo01.lmco.com) (192.31.106.12) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:59:38 +0000 Received: from emss07g01.ems.lmco.com ([166.29.2.16]) by mailfo01.lmco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2MKxHtD015808 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:59:17 GMT Received: from CONVERSION2-DAEMON.lmco.com by lmco.com (PMDF V6.4 #31805) id <0M1B00F010YMET@lmco.com> for accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:59:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from HDXHTPN9.us.lmco.com ([158.188.83.19]) by lmco.com (PMDF V6.4 #31805) with ESMTP id <0M1B004UA0Y91R@lmco.com> for accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:59:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from HDXDSP33.us.lmco.com ([fe80::d0ea:cdbc:7392:8296]) by HDXHTPN9.us.lmco.com ([fe80::bc2a:fd6f:439:c93f%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:59:03 -0600 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:59:02 +0000 From: "Cardon, Tejay E" Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing? In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [158.188.95.6] To: "accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org" Message-id: <57754A39E408FB4994D100B1F4409AD80BD3D7D9@HDXDSP33.us.lmco.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_W75Huovc0MHt33wDfO6JfQ)" Content-language: en-US Thread-Topic: EXTERNAL: Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing? Thread-Index: AQHNBfo9UhpM5IRpMUGmhCK72IIeZpZyu4sAgADYkdWAAzpCFYAAArQA Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <199737055.224777.1332176326567.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov> <3C00AD2E-4B34-402C-A715-7BC965D0CB00@cray.com> <883862977.232333.1332269401141.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov> <585288691.232676.1332275398175.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.6.7498,1.0.260,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-03-22_06:2012-03-22,2012-03-22,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Boundary_(ID_W75Huovc0MHt33wDfO6JfQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I believe it would be in our best interest to move to .203+ in order to benefit from Kerberos security. From: John Vines [mailto:john.w.vines@ugov.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:45 PM To: accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org; accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing? Well, I spoke two soon. There are two pending tickets on my plate (Accumulo-404, running on top of kerberoized hdfs and Accumulo-489, passwords are not secured with input format) that are a lot easier to implement, if not only feasible, against 20.203+ (CDH3u0+). It is possible to do version checking within the code and then calling via reflection, but that is ugly, ugly code that I think we'd be best to avoid. So I ask the community, do we have any reasons NOT to migrate our minimum version to 20.203 now that we have a need for a newer version? John On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Robert Vesse > wrote: I was just interested since 0.20.2 is now two years old if there was any compelling reason (other than QA requirements) to stay with that version Rob Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc Software Engineer, Bay Area m: 925.960.3941 | o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com | Skype: rvesse 6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd | Suite 120 | Pleasanton CA, 94588 On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:26 PM, John Vines wrote: We don't depend on any specific features of 20.205, so I don't know why we need to update the minimum version. I know many of us have been working with 20.205 without issue. John Sent from my phone, so pardon the typos and brevity. On Mar 20, 2012 2:50 PM, "Robert Vesse" > wrote: I haven't looked at the 1.4 branch in detail, did you guys move to a newer version of Hadoop as well, the 1.3.5 release uses the comparatively ancient 0.20.2 version of Hadoop Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc Software Engineer, Bay Area m: 925.960.3941 | o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com | Skype: rvesse 6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd | Suite 120 | Pleasanton CA, 94588 On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton wrote: Yes, the 1.4 branch is considered stable. We've been pounding on 1.4 for quite a while. The scale of the testing has over a longer period of time, more complete and more aggressive. Another team has been using it for some benchmark testing at scale, and it is remarkable for the *lack* of problems. No, you cannot mix 1.3 clients with 1.4 servers. We jumped from 0.3 of thrift to 0.6.1, and that was a huge change for us; I'm not even sure if it can be on-the-wire compatible. Our goal is to ensure compatibility for 1.X.* level for any constant X. But a switch from 1.X to 1.Y... we'll remove deprecated APIs, and break on-the-wire compatibility. -Eric On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Vesse > wrote: Is the 1.4.0 branch considered stable enough for use? And is it the API compatible between 1.3.5 and 1.4.0 or do both the database and the client need to be on the exact same version for communication to work correctly? Rob On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:06 AM, John Vines wrote: I believe we don't have them distributed because our poms do not include adequate licensing info for us to publicly release them. 1.4.0 should be released when we release it though. John On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Robert Vesse > wrote: Is there a reason why Maven artifacts for 1.3.5 are not available in the Apache repositories? Which Maven repositories (if any) are they available in? Rob --Boundary_(ID_W75Huovc0MHt33wDfO6JfQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I believe it would be in our best interest to move to .203+ in order to benefit from Kerberos security.

 

From: John Vines [mailto:john.w.vines@ugov.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:45 PM
To: accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org; accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing?

 

Well, I spoke two soon. There are two pending tickets on my plate (Accumulo-404, running on top of kerberoized hdfs and Accumulo-489, passwords are not secured with input format) that are a lot easier to implement, if not only feasible, against 20.203+ (CDH3u0+). It is possible to do version checking within the code and then calling via reflection, but that is ugly, ugly code that I think we'd be best to avoid. So I ask the community, do we have any reasons NOT to migrate our minimum version to 20.203 now that we have a need for a newer version?

John

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Robert Vesse <rvesse@yarcdata.com> wrote:

I was just interested since 0.20.2 is now two years old if there was any compelling reason (other than QA requirements) to stay with that version

 

Rob

 

Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc
Software Engineer, Bay Area
m: 925.960.3941  |  o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com  |  Skype: rvesse
6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd  |  Suite 120  | Pleasanton CA, 94588

 

On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:26 PM, John Vines wrote:



We don't depend on any specific features of 20.205, so I don't know why we need to update the minimum version. I know many of us have been working with 20.205 without issue.

John

Sent from my phone, so pardon the typos and brevity.

On Mar 20, 2012 2:50 PM, "Robert Vesse" <rvesse@yarcdata.com> wrote:

I haven't looked at the 1.4 branch in detail, did you guys move to a newer version of Hadoop as well, the 1.3.5 release uses the comparatively ancient 0.20.2 version of Hadoop

 

Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc
Software Engineer, Bay Area
m: 925.960.3941  |  o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com  |  Skype: rvesse
6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd  |  Suite 120  | Pleasanton CA, 94588

 

On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton wrote:



Yes, the 1.4 branch is considered stable.

 

We've been pounding on 1.4 for quite a while.  The scale of the testing has over a longer period of time, more complete and more aggressive. Another team has been using it for some benchmark testing at scale, and it is remarkable for the *lack* of problems.

 

No, you cannot mix 1.3 clients with 1.4 servers.  We jumped from 0.3 of thrift to 0.6.1, and that was a huge change for us; I'm not even sure if it can be on-the-wire compatible.  Our goal is to ensure compatibility for 1.X.* level for any constant X.  But a switch from 1.X to 1.Y... we'll remove deprecated APIs, and break on-the-wire compatibility.

 

-Eric

 

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Vesse <rvesse@yarcdata.com> wrote:

Is the 1.4.0 branch considered stable enough for use?  And is it the API compatible between 1.3.5 and 1.4.0 or do both the database and the client need to be on the exact same version for communication to work correctly?

 

Rob

 

On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:06 AM, John Vines wrote:



I believe we don't have them distributed because our poms do not include adequate licensing info for us to publicly release them. 1.4.0 should be released when we release it though.

John

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Robert Vesse <rvesse@yarcdata.com> wrote:

Is there a reason why Maven artifacts for 1.3.5 are not available in the Apache repositories?

Which Maven repositories (if any) are they available in?

Rob

 

 

 

 

 

 

--Boundary_(ID_W75Huovc0MHt33wDfO6JfQ)--