Joey Echeverria 2013-07-26, 15:02
Eric Newton 2013-07-26, 15:25
Josh Elser 2013-07-26, 15:36
Keith Turner 2013-07-26, 15:45
Joey Echeverria 2013-07-26, 16:24
Keith Turner 2013-07-26, 17:20
Joey Echeverria 2013-07-26, 18:33
Billie Rinaldi 2013-07-26, 19:02
dlmarion@... 2013-07-26, 19:34
Joey Echeverria 2013-07-29, 17:23
Dave Marion 2013-08-01, 23:33
Joey Echeverria 2013-08-02, 18:22
Would it be reasonable to consider a version of 1.4 that breaks
compatibility with 0.20? I'm not really a fan of this, personally, but
am curious what others think.
Christopher L Tubbs II
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Joey Echeverria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, it's been one of those weeks.
> The current version would probably not be backwards compatible to
> 0.20.2 just based on changes in dependencies. We're looking right now
> to see how hard it is to have three way compatibility (0.20, 1.0,
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dave Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Any update?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joey Echeverria [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
>> We're testing this today. I'll report back what we find.
>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM, null <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Will 1.4 still work with 0.20 with these patches?"
>>> Great point Billie.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Billie Rinaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:02:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch On Fri, Jul
>>> 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Joey Echeverria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> > If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I
>>>> > would
>>>> > to see the following test run using CDH4 on at least a 5 node cluster.
>>>> > More nodes would be better.
>>>> > * unit test
>>>> > * Functional test
>>>> > * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification
>>>> > * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification + agitation
>>>> > * 24 hr Random walk
>>>> > * 24 hr Random walk + agitation
>>>> > I may be able to assist with this, but I can not make any promises.
>>>> Sure thing. Is there already a write-up on running this full battery
>>>> of tests? I have a 10 node cluster that I can use for this.
>>>> > Great. I think this would be a good patch for 1.4. I assume that
>>>> > if a user stays with Hadoop 1 there are no dependency changes?
>>>> Yup. It works the same way as 1.5 where all of the dependency changes
>>>> are in a Hadoop 2.0 profile.
>>> In 1.5.0, we gave up on compatibility with 0.20 (and early versions of
>>> 1.0) to make the compatibility requirements simpler; we ended up
>>> without dependency changes in the hadoop version profiles. Will 1.4
>>> still work with 0.20 with these patches? If there are dependency
>>> changes in the profiles, 1.4 would have to be compiled against a
>>> hadoop version compatible with the running version of hadoop, correct?
>>> We had some trouble in the
>>> 1.5 release process with figuring out how to provide multiple binary
>>> artifacts (each compiled against a different version of hadoop) for
>>> the same release. Just something we should consider before we are in
>>> the midst of releasing 1.4.4.
> Joey Echeverria
> Director, Federal FTS
> Cloudera, Inc.
Joey Echeverria 2013-08-02, 18:37
Mike Drob 2013-08-02, 19:58
Joey Echeverria 2013-08-02, 20:03
Billie Rinaldi 2013-08-04, 22:54
Keith Turner 2013-07-26, 19:30
Sean Busbey 2013-10-14, 16:55