Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> DISCUSS: Have hbase require at least hadoop 1.0.0 in hbase 0.96.0?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: DISCUSS: Have hbase require at least hadoop 1.0.0 in hbase 0.96.0?
I'm wondering why HDFS security support should be mandatory?  Append makes
sense because there's no way to have a durable system without it.
Security is currently an optional feature & implemented as an HBase
co-processor (vs core), correct?  Is there a problem (other than minor
inconvenience) with using introspection APIs for security in the core and
then warning if security is enabled but the API is unreachable?

Nicolas

On 3/2/12 3:50 PM, "Ted Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Hadoop 0.22 currently doesn't support security.
>
>FYI
>
>On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should we make it so hbase 0.96.0 requires at least hadoop 1.0.0?
>> This would mean we would no longer support running on older versions
>> such as branch-0.20-append (and perhaps stuff like CDH2?)?
>>
>> Requiring Hadoop 1.0.0 at least means we can presume security and
>> append.  We also narrow the set of hadoops we need to support
>> simplifying things for ourselves some.
>>
>> What you lot think?
>> St.Ack
>>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB