Hi,

I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).  Specifically,
does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x, or 0.23.x (which
became hadoop 2.0.x recently)

Please speak up if so!

Thanks,
Jon.

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

We use hadoop 0.22

Cheers

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
> potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
> build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).  Specifically,
> does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x, or 0.23.x (which
> became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
>
> Please speak up if so!
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Works for me, 1.0 and 2.0 only. Not 3.0.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
> potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
> build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).  Specifically,
> does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x, or 0.23.x (which
> became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
>
> Please speak up if so!
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
Hein (via Tom White)

We are using HBase 0.94.0 against Hadoop 1.0.3, but plan to move to 0.23.x.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [poll] Does anyone run or test against hadoop 0.21, 0.22, 0.23 under HBase 0.92.0+/0.94.0?

We use hadoop 0.22

Cheers

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
> potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
> build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).  
> Specifically, does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x,
> or 0.23.x (which became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
>
> Please speak up if so!
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Out of curiosity, why 0.23 and not wait a bit for the 2.0.x branch?

----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: [poll] Does anyone run or test against hadoop 0.21, 0.22, 0.23 under HBase 0.92.0+/0.94.0?

We are using HBase 0.94.0 against Hadoop 1.0.3, but plan to move to 0.23.x.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [poll] Does anyone run or test against hadoop 0.21, 0.22, 0.23 under HBase 0.92.0+/0.94.0?

We use hadoop 0.22

Cheers

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
> potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
> build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile). 
> Specifically, does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x,
> or 0.23.x (which became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
>
> Please speak up if so!
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
> potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
> build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).  Specifically,
> does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x, or 0.23.x (which
> became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
>

Jon, what versions of HBase are you asking about?  A while back we
said that HBase 0.96.0 would be the first release that could assume
for a minimum a 1.0.x API [1].  Previous releases we postulated
(though probably haven't tested much) could be run on versions as old
as branch-0.20-append.  We might want to reexamine this "decision" if
we we are talking HBase 0.94 (or even HBase 0.92)?

+1 on hadoop 1.0 and 2.0 versions/APIs only.  I'd be fine w/ a 3.0 snapshot.

Any more versions than this and we'll be spending all dev effort on a
shim layer that looks like the Pompidou Center to make the various
HBase versions run (slowly) over all 57 varieties of Hadoop.

St.Ack

1. http://search-hadoop.com/m/5qFYe24EsUb2/hbase+0.96+hadoop+1.0&subj=Re+DISCUSS+Have+hbase+require+at+least+hadoop+1+0+0+in+hbase+0+96+0+

inline

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
> > potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
> > build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).
>  Specifically,
> > does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x, or 0.23.x (which
> > became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
> >
>
> Jon, what versions of HBase are you asking about?  A while back we
> said that HBase 0.96.0 would be the first release that could assume
> for a minimum a 1.0.x API [1].  Previous releases we postulated
> (though probably haven't tested much) could be run on versions as old
> as branch-0.20-append.  We might want to reexamine this "decision" if
> we we are talking HBase 0.94 (or even HBase 0.92)?
>
> Its in the the title -- I was asking about specifically about hbase
0.92.0+/0.94.0+.  I should have also included 0.20-append in the list of
hadoops.

I don't think this affects the decision you refer to. I'm not trying to age
off older versions -- I'm trying find out from this discussion which
"newer" versions we should have HBase work/compile against, and if we can
just say 1.x and 2.x and not include the 0.21, 0.22, and now 0.23 branches.
We've found out along the way that while different Hadoop versions are
"source-compatible" (no source change but requires recompile), they are not
"binary-compatible" (one hbase jar for all hadoop versions).

As examples, an hbase compiled against a hadoop 1.0 hdfs doesn't work ontop
of a hadoop 2.0 hdfs, and that a hbase compiled against hadoop 2.0 hdfs
doesn't work on a hadoop 1.0 cluster.  To add to the mix, today we learned
that an hbase compiled against a hadoop 23 doesn't work on a hadoop 2.0
hdfs cluster.
> +1 on hadoop 1.0 and 2.0 versions/APIs only.  I'd be fine w/ a 3.0
> snapshot.
>
> Any more versions than this and we'll be spending all dev effort on a
> shim layer that looks like the Pompidou Center to make the various
> HBase versions run (slowly) over all 57 varieties of Hadoop.
>
> St.Ack
>
> 1.
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/5qFYe24EsUb2/hbase+0.96+hadoop+1.0&subj=Re+DISCUSS+Have+hbase+require+at+least+hadoop+1+0+0+in+hbase+0+96+0+
>

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think this affects the decision you refer to. I'm not trying to age
> off older versions -- I'm trying find out from this discussion which
> "newer" versions we should have HBase work/compile against, and if we can
> just say 1.x and 2.x and not include the 0.21, 0.22, and now 0.23 branches.
>

When you say HBase 0.92/0.94 above, do you mean the next releases from
the 0.92 and 0.94 branches (0.92.2 and 0.94.2?) would be tested
against hadoop 1.x and 2.x only (If the result of this discussion is a
decision that hadoop 1.0 and 2.0 are all we support)?

St.Ack

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think this affects the decision you refer to. I'm not trying to
> age
> > off older versions -- I'm trying find out from this discussion which
> > "newer" versions we should have HBase work/compile against, and if we can
> > just say 1.x and 2.x and not include the 0.21, 0.22, and now 0.23
> branches.
> >
>
> When you say HBase 0.92/0.94 above, do you mean the next releases from
> the 0.92 and 0.94 branches (0.92.2 and 0.94.2?) would be tested
> against hadoop 1.x and 2.x only (If the result of this discussion is a
> decision that hadoop 1.0 and 2.0 are all we support)?
>
> I'd +1 that.  I believe the decision regarding hadoop 1.0 as the min
version in 0.96 really means that we could remove shim code currently
present to support the older 0.20-append branch then (hflush vs hsync,
etc).  The fact that our pom doesn't contain the 0.20-append branch on
0.92+ basically says to me that we aren't really testing against that at
all these days.

Today we only really run unit tests on hadoop 1.0 -- we have a hadoop 23
compile check that is done and if that build fails on jenkins no alarms are
raised (that said, the builds against 1.0.0 are better but still in pretty
rough shape).  Once we fix the last of the hadoop 2.0 unit tests
uptream I'd like to turn on the hudson builds to build and test trunk
against hadoop 2.0. As it stands today, trunk needs HBASE-5876 -- which
needs to be renamed to be hadoop 2.0; 0.94 would needs
+HBASE-5966,HBASE-5985 which are already on trunk, and 0.92 need 5966, 5985
and two I believe 2 others but does not need HBASE-5876.

Jon.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

We work on hadoop 2.0.

Regards
Ram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [poll] Does anyone run or test against hadoop 0.21, 0.22,
> 0.23 under HBase 0.92.0+/0.94.0?
>
> We use hadoop 0.22
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
> > potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop
> 2.0
> > build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).
> Specifically,
> > does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x, or 0.23.x
> (which
> > became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
> >
> > Please speak up if so!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jon.
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd +1 that.  I believe the decision regarding hadoop 1.0 as the min
> version in 0.96 really means that we could remove shim code currently
> present to support the older 0.20-append branch then (hflush vs hsync,
> etc).

Let that be our answer going forward; customization's go into the
hadoop compatibility modules in 0.96 forward.

> The fact that our pom doesn't contain the 0.20-append branch on
> 0.92+ basically says to me that we aren't really testing against that at
> all these days.
>

Agreed.  But if someone showed up w/ a patch to fix a bug in
branch-0.20-append, we'd take it on.

> Today we only really run unit tests on hadoop 1.0 -- we have a hadoop 23
> compile check that is done and if that build fails on jenkins no alarms are
> raised (that said, the builds against 1.0.0 are better but still in pretty
> rough shape).  Once we fix the last of the hadoop 2.0 unit tests
> uptream I'd like to turn on the hudson builds to build and test trunk
> against hadoop 2.0. As it stands today, trunk needs HBASE-5876 -- which
> needs to be renamed to be hadoop 2.0; 0.94 would needs
> +HBASE-5966,HBASE-5985 which are already on trunk, and 0.92 need 5966, 5985
> and two I believe 2 others but does not need HBASE-5876.
>

Thanks for keeping an account Jon.  Lets see how this discussion
finishes up then write up how we go forward.

St.Ack

We are using 0.94 and 1.0.3 too
Best wishes

On 07/18/2012 05:47 PM, Tony Dean wrote:
> We are using HBase 0.94.0 against Hadoop 1.0.3, but plan to move to 0.23.x.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [poll] Does anyone run or test against hadoop 0.21, 0.22, 0.23 under HBase 0.92.0+/0.94.0?
>
> We use hadoop 0.22
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to get a feel to see how affected folks would be if we
>> potentially only had hbase support a hadoop 1.0 build and a hadoop 2.0
>> build profile (and perhaps a hadoop 3.0-SNAPSHOT proflile).
>> Specifically, does anyone use hbase on top of hadoop 0.21.x, 0.22.x,
>> or 0.23.x (which became hadoop 2.0.x recently)
>>
>> Please speak up if so!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jon.
>>
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
> 10mo. ANIVERSARIO DE LA CREACION DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE LAS CIENCIAS INFORMATICAS...
> CONECTADOS AL FUTURO, CONECTADOS A LA REVOLUCION
>
> http://www.uci.cu
> http://www.facebook.com/universidad.uci
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/universidad_uci

--

Marcos Luis Ort�z Valmaseda
*Data Engineer && Sr. System Administrator at UCI*
about.me/marcosortiz <http://about.me/marcosortiz>
My Blog <http://marcosluis2186.posterous.com>
@marcosluis2186 <http://twitter.com/marcosluis2186>

10mo. ANIVERSARIO DE LA CREACION DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE LAS CIENCIAS INFORMATICAS...
CONECTADOS AL FUTURO, CONECTADOS A LA REVOLUCION

http://www.uci.cu
http://www.facebook.com/universidad.uci
http://www.flickr.com/photos/universidad_uci