Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206


Copy link to this message
-
RE: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
Hi

First time this issue was reported, I felt bad because HBASE-5155 was
introduced by me.  I sincerely apologize for the mistake that I did.
Because of my mistake I think all you guys are trying to do some
workarounds.  Sorry for pitching in late to this thread as I was not in town
to access mails.

Next time I share surely be careful in such things.  

Regards
Ram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Chanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 10:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> I filed HBASE-6710.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
> > Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > @Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the
> same.
> >
> > On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would
> work.
> > The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
> > versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well).  We just need to apply
> > HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2.  So you would first upgrade the client, then
> the
> > server(s).  The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-
> 6268
> > applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94
> format, it
> > doesn't need to know which is which.  I'll of course test all this
> :).
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody
> had
> > > deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client
> and
> > > server out of sync.
> > > In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and
> 0.94.1 but
> > > not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would
> work
> > > against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to
> > 0.94.2
> > > if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >  From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> > >
> > > Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers
> that'll
> > > upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
> > >
> > > The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will
> not
> > > have a version attached to it.
> > >
> > > So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> > > different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or
> something).
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both
> {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> > > and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require
> > configuration
> > > changes.
> > >
> > > The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
> > >
> > > On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> > > [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is
> enabled
> > >
> > > On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are: